Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist......Kenneth E. Boulding
As I come to the end of Dave Breese's book, Seven Men Who Rule The World From The Grave, the last man to rule the world from the grave is John Maynard Keynes. As mentioned in my previous post on Karl Marx and Marxist theory, no two men did more to destroy the original intent of the founding fathers than did Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. Both set the groundwork for cultural Marxism and corporate fascism that was later to flourish as competing for totalitarianism ideologies hell-bent on destroying a self-governing Republic that sought to practice free-market Capitalism. Because of Keynes, we as a nation are now addicted to the artificial money supply. His socialist economic theories laid out the philosophical rationale for endless government borrowing and government spending of fiat money.
John Maynard Keynes is the father of macro and micro-economics. His philosophy is behind all courses taught in college on economics and his theories are the foundation and structure of, not only socialist Europe, but the United States as well. As a result, America's economy or gross domestic product barely grows and if it does, it the result of stimulus and/or expanding the money supply, a.k.a., quantitative easing. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve, the Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), countries all around the world are in debt to a shadowy organization (small contingent of private investment banks with no oversight or jurisdiction) that charges ungodly usury, saddles the people with austerity, and controls the populace, all the while getting fabulous wealthy from printing money out of thin air.
Before we go into Keynesian economic theory, we must first understand how America's economy was "rescued" by John Maynard Keynes and how we have amassed a $20 Trillion debt and counting.
Around the turn of the 20th century, the industrial revolution was coming on strong and optimism was abounding and since America had so progressed since the civil war, we had only forward to go. Darwin's theory promised utopia, as did Marxist theory and Freudian theory as well. Religious Liberalism was taking hold and so nothing was to be denied. Prosperity, expansion, and the promise of wider industrialization led many to believe that only a bright future was in store; men had only an upward evolution, he could not go backward. Under the leadership of John Dewey, the American educational system was brimming with new ideas and concepts such as instrumentalism and radical empiricism. A sunny outlook prevailed and even Time-Life books made note of it calling it, The Fabulous Century, giving it the title, The Cocksure Era,
"The mood was set for the first decade of the new century and won for the period several titles- The Age of Optimism, the Age of Confidence, the Age of Innocence. But another tag might have seemed appropriate to an objective visitor from abroad: the Cocksure Era. For this was a time when Americans were optimistic and self-confident to an extreme; they did not merely hope for the best, they fully expected it...…..Most people automatically assumed that all problems would be solved in the normal course of events; meanwhile, the important thing was for a man to get ahead, to earn maximum returns from bountiful opportunities" (This Fabulous Century: 1900-1910, p. 29). And Americans had every reason to be optimistic: the housewife could buy a dozen eggs for 12 cents; she could get sirloin steak for 24 cents a pound; a turkey dinner only costs 20 cents. The businessman had it good as well: taxes were little and trade was moving along swiftly. New devices were appearing such as the typewriter, self-binding harvester, the sewing machine, and the automobile was advancing (Breese 182). Politicians had their heyday for sure bringing with them promises for a bright future filled with nothing but optimism. "We are trustees of the world's progress, guardians of its righteous peace" (Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana, p. 183).
Moving into the 2nd decade of the 20th century, despite the affluent times, some were having doubts though and questions were beginning to arise. Consider once again what the Time-Life books say,
"These affluent times were roiled by increasing ferment and discontent. Labor unrest, rising little noticed in the previous decade, could no longer be ignored; in the first six months of 1916, the country was beset by no fewer than 2,093 strikes and lock-outs. Added to the demands of militant labor were strident voices campaigning for other causes that seemed even more radical than the six-day workweek: women suffrage, birth control, advancement for colored people, progressive education, prohibition. Most alarming of all, a million socialists were demanding the overthrow of capitalism, which-they asserted-proved rotten to the core" (This Fabulous Century, p. 31). Then a shot fired in 1914-the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria, Hungary at the hands of a Serbian nationalist. The first World War left "carnage more frightful than the world had thought possible" (Breese 184). The war was beginning to change national attitudes and the thought processes for the future, "for the Marxist, the war was a godsend. The socialist forces in the West used it to prove that the capitalist societies were indeed breaking down. Long had they preached that capitalism bears within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Now they could prove it" (184). So, Socialist parties began to grow all over Europe and the United States with the slogan, the inevitable socialist world revolution. The war was advantageous to the Marxist for another reason: the fall of Russia to the Communists and the establishment of the first Communist dictatorship under Lenin. With a disillusioned people under the czar, they were more than willing to follow any leader who promised them great change for the future and they simply could not resist a man with a plan. And so, the Communist party took hold and "150 million people slipped into the Communist dark age, most of them never to be heard from again" and "the fiery, revolutionary Lenin sensed the opportunity for Communism to move from mere ideology to control of the levers of power" (184). Just as the Communists were gaining ground, so too were the religious liberals that were set on controlling the religious establishment in America and Europe, "the liberal views of Wellhausen, with their doctrine of evolution in religion, were pressed more strongly than ever" (184). As Marxism and Darwinism were spreading their tentacles far and wide like a dark pestilence, another promise of utopia was gaining ground: the promise of economic prosperity for all. And so, economics became the issue.
After the war, there was a depression out of which came "an expansion in the economy that approached the spectacular" (Breese 185). Everyone wanted the new products that were arriving on the market and this led to a never-ending upward cycle. This aggregate demand fueled new employment, which in turn produced the money to buy all these new products and then some, which then produced the capital (profit) to invest more, "mass production began to turn out radios, electric refrigerators, modern automobiles, shinier bathroom fixtures, and a thousand other things that could hardly be made fast enough to satisfy the appetite of a voracious populace" (185). Time-Life books report,
"Corporate profits were up. Thanks to new techniques of mass production, many manufacturers netted huge sums that they liberally plowed back into plant expansion. In 1923, U.S. Steel was operating so efficiently that it was able to reduce its work-day from twelve to eight hours, to employ seventeen thousand additional workers, to raise wages, and yet, amazingly, to show an increase in profits. Income was up in most lines of endeavor. Even the industrial workers, whose strikes for higher pay had availed them little in the previous decade, benefitted from company largesse and enjoyed a higher standard of living. To round out the happy picture, prices were stable, savings and life insurance doubled; and business was given an added impetus by the growth of chain stores and installment buying. With all these factors reinforcing the upward spiral, prosperity seemed to have no ceiling" (This Fabulous Century, p. 96). This upward, never-ending cycle of prosperity created profits so large that people started paying attention to the rising values in the stock market. By 1928, the prices of stocks soared to exponential levels. Everyone dreamed of striking it rich. One and a half million Americans brought all their hopes, fueled by emotional euphoria, with them (similar to the subprime bubble in 2006 in which Alan Greenspan coined the phrase "irrational exuberance"). They were "confident that the amazing rise of stock prices would be the escalator that would take them to a level of possessions beyond their wildest dreams" (186). Anyone who dared to lift a word of warning was thought to be "positively unpatriotic" or a Cassandra. And no one wanted to listen to any warnings because they were filling their lives with the latest product even though they did not have the money to buy it. So, they bought the products with credit instead.
Installment buying or buying with credit seemed like a "miracle." How easy it was to get anything in an instant and pay for it later-ignoring the fact that installment buying "added between 10 and 40 percent to the cost of an article" (186). Warnings sounded by an unpatriotic banker that people were mortgaging their futures for instant gratification and present-day pleasures (187). And like most warnings, the banker's voice was ignored and so the upward elevator kept on rising. Such is the case with most bubbles in which warnings go unheeded and history is littered with them. Time-Life Books reported this time as "credit buying a healthy handmaiden of prosperity" (This Fabulous Century 96). Breese points out the optimist with succinctly quoting writing in Collier's Weekly from Time-Life Books, 'Smith has large debts,' was not really damning, but complementary, for it meant that 'Smith has a fine line of credit' (187). And so the masses continued to buy up the products and the products couldn't be made fast enough. This "miracle" of credit allowed everyone to have the latest products, even those who clearly couldn't afford them. Much of this was achieved by companies due largely in part to advertising.
Around this time was the advent of the radio or electronic media. It was all the hype. As radio grew from its beginning in Pittsburgh, station KDKA, it's sales rose from 2 million in 1920 to 600 million in 1929. As with true Americanism, advertising came with broadcasting and so ad promos saw large expansions; the lure was effectively enticing-people bought up the products advertised with their heart content. This time was described as "the golden dawn of advertising" (187). And so, the upward spiral indeed saw no ceiling. Prosperity was expected for every person, the businessman and his wife!
But then IT happened!
The Great Depression.
The crash of 1929-Black Tuesday, October 29th left stock prices plummeting and losing 40% their value or $30 million. According to the CPI (which is not accurate at all), adjusted for inflation $30 million is equal to $441 Billion in today's dollars. The one reason for the collapse was because stocks were priced exceedingly above their real value (you think!). There simply was no economic justification for their extortionist prices. But not only that, stocks could be bought for as little as a 10% margin, with the balance financed and paid off by loans from stockbrokers. This was eerily similar to the recent economic collapse of 2008 in which subprime loans were marketed with the illusion that anyone could own a home, even those who made $8 an hour! As these subprime loans were bundled together and sold as mortgage-backed securities to investors all around the world, they were given AAA ratings from Moody's and Finch and those day traders made off with billions, all the while selling fraudulent securities to an unsuspecting, gullible people. Even governments bought up these securities like candy! When the market collapsed, the consequence was like a tsunami of overextended investors who simply did not have the money to pay the additional margin. Our current derivatives market now issues credit default swaps which results in an even larger tsunami of losses. A credit default swap is basically insurance against a risk gone bad, so it essentially takes away the integrity of investing. All of these bad investments drove the market deeper into descent with "brokers themselves being carried away by the cataract of financial ruin rolling upon America and the world" (188). The same scenario was repeated in 2008 and the market still didn't learn.
The crash of 1929 of the American stock market is still considered the most memorable day in the economic history of civilization. From there on out, new questions arose such as, how did we get here? How should we restructure all of it? Do economics and politics tie together? How do we understand our relationship with money? How do we get back onto the road to recovery? Black Tuesday stimulated the "study of that nearly occultic science called economics" (188). And everyone from the academicians to the shoe shiners asked those questions. From there on out, everything was watched more carefully. Never again (really?) was anything that had to deal with economics considered automatic, ever-growing, and never failing (188). Despite the pursuit of questions that became the full-time occupation of the more pensive people, America slipped into the gloomy, despondent decade of the Great Depression, "life was over; the bright dream of the 1920s had turned into a cruel farce" (189). The thoughtful person considered at that time that a politician promising hope and prosperity seemed like the words of a charlatan! Consider these concise words that Breese articulates with lucidity, "As the nation moved through the Great Depression, it thought deeply about what had happened. Only then did it take the time to remember that the previous message of unlimited prosperity was really a charade. Banks were actually failing before the crash at a rate of two per day. The nation angrily remembered that it was constantly the object of reassuring speeches by politicians, businessmen, economists, and other academicians, who claimed the nation was marching along a permanently high plateau with nothing to worry about. Never again was the world quite as confident in the promises of people who were supposed to know what they were talking about. One of the worst aspects of the Great Depression was that answers were not forthcoming, and it appeared that there would never be relief form the hopelessness the nation faced. The nation sang "Happy Day Are Here Again" but in 1930 the national income fell from $87 billion to $42 billion in 1932" (189). As a nation, the American people grew weary of empty promises and no change in their circumstances. So, they took their vengeance out on the political party in power at that time. As a result, Hoover, the Republican incumbent was axed out and Roosevelt won by a landslide with his promise of a "new deal."
But problems still persisted into 1933. Unemployment especially dispirited the people and continued to spread hopelessness. Breese quotes Robert Heilbroner, "It was the unemployment that was hardest to bear. The jobless millions were like an embolism in the nation's vital circulation; and while their indisputable existence argued more forcibly than any text that something was wrong with the system, the economists wrung their hands and racked their brains and called upon the spirit of Adam Smith, but could offer neither diagnosis nor remedy. Unemployment-this kind of unemployment-was simply not listed among the possible ills of the system: it was absurd, impossible, unreasonable, and paradoxical. But it was there" (The Worldly Philosophers p. 253). And there was a paradox indeed with unemployment. The great need for further production while at the same time millions seeking employment in vain. No one seemed to have a solution or a formula for solving the problems.
Then came a man with a solution. A man with a formula. The man, John Maynard Keynes, proposed a solution that we now call Keynesian Economics and his theories "changed the face of the world and affects every living person" (190). John Maynard Keynes still rules from the grave!
Keynes was born in 1883, the year of Karl Marx's death. He was a well-bred Englishman (pedigree). In his early years, Keynes showed himself to be intellectually brilliant by effectively and convincingly communicating his ideas to his classmates. By only 14, he won a scholarship to Eton, an upscale, sophisticated boys' school in Britain. After that, he attended King's College at Cambridge with much success showing himself to be an excellent debater and thoroughly capable of interacting with his professors and his peers. In fact, his professors were so impressed that they asked him to consider being a full-time economist. Even though a door opened for him to pursue an academic career, he needed to make money and instead wanted to manage a railway or organize a trust (191). In the interim, he worked for the British government, passing his tests with high scores, although scoring the lowest in the economics part. By 1907, Keynes was sent by the British government to work in the India Office for the treasury. Since he found the work boring and tedious, he spent his time doing economic research and in 1913, he wrote a mathematical treatise titled, Indian Currency and Finance. He later resigned from that position and returned to England but since his treatise was considered nothing short of a masterpiece, at only 29, he was invited to join the newly formed Royal Commission on the problems of currency in India. He also became Editor of the Economic Journal (Britain's most influential economic publication at that time-similar to today's The Economist) for the next 33 years.
As WW I came to a close, Keynes was called by his government to the Treasury. It was this position that enabled him to get a firm grasp on overseas finances and even develop "theories as to what might be done with those unstable things called national currencies" (191). Soon enough, he became a very influential figure in the Treasury and "gained the reputation of being an important person in the field of economics, especially economics as it relates to government" (192). Following the war, he went to Paris as Deputy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Supreme Economic Council as a representative for the Treasury at the Peace Conference. As he observed and strongly opposed the decisions made in the reparations that Germany was required to pay in the Carthaginian peace, he discerned that it was way beyond Germany's ability to repay. This eventually led to the beginning of the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland [more on that down below]. As Keynes believed nothing good could come from the decisions made at the peace conference, he resigned and set to writing his repudiation of the peace conference in The Economic Consequences of the Peace. This polemic, written in heated passion, established him as a formidable economic mind and it served as a warning to the world of the tragic consequences sure to come from the Treaty of Versailles (192).
By 1924, The nations initiated the promises of undoing the decisions of 1919 and out of this, Keynes became famous. He also became independently wealthy in his own ability, a rare credential for an economist, by speculating in International currency markets on Wall Street. He became a multi-millionaire. It was at this point that he really had a reputation, not only in socialist Europe but now in America and his influence was instrumental during the Roosevelt administration and his "New Deal," and by rescuing the American economy from the Great Depression.
"An understanding of economic theory Keynes developed will give us a clue to Keynes's pervasive influence to this day" (Breese 193). So what is Keynesian economics? Well first, it is important to note that before Keynes impacted fiscal policy in America, the basic concept or understanding by most Americans, economists, politicians, etc., was that cyclical markets had wide variations. In other words, the business cycle would fluctuate between inflation and depression and this was inevitable, but it was believed that automatic safety switches were built in that could pull the economy up from depression and ease it down-ward from an inflationary peak, "the major argument was that during periods of depression, savings would rise and therefore interest rates would fall, making money available for industrial expansion. Industry would then expand, increasing employment and causing the economy to rise, thereby producing more investment. Interest rates would then rise, reducing savings and causing a downtown in the economy. So the cycle would continue with dependable safety switches built-in at the top and bottom of the business cycle" (Breese 193-194). So, to reiterate, concerning the economic cycle, standard variations were always the conventional belief or conviction at that time (early, 1900s).
Keynes believed however that this view was flawed. He stated that the conventional belief didn't get us out of the Great Depression and in no way was a guarantee (well, duh! Is anything guaranteed today except death and taxes?). According to Keynes, just because the businessman had good intentions for production and plant building using low-interest rates, didn't mean the economy would suddenly awaken from the dead. Keynes also asserted that the missing piece of the "old" theory was that there would be insufficient money in savings at the bottom of the business cycle to reduce interest rates that stimulate the economy again and cause the cycle to move upward. So, for Keynes the stimulate necessary to cause the economy to move upward towards prosperity from a depression "did not lie in static values of savings and investment.....[but] rather, that it was enter-prise that caused an upward economic movement" (194). Keynes also argued that enterprise and business investment were not always a constant, dependable thing because if a business overextended their product it would produce a supply beyond the demand and in would prove quite costly reducing profits for the business. The simple law of supply and demand is applied. So again, the businessman could not be expected to invest constantly.
Keynes articulated the general tenets of his economic theories in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Breese states that the treatise is complicated and makes for demanding reading so he quotes Robert Heilbroner's uncomplicated view,
First, an economy in depression could stay there. There was nothing inherent in the economic mechanism situation to pull it out. One could have "equilibrium" with unemployment, even massive unemployment. Second, prosperity depended on investment. If business spending for capital equipment fell, a spiral of contraction would begin. Only if business investment rose would a spiral of expansion follow. And third, investment was an undependable drive wheel for the economy. Uncertainty, not assurance, lay at the very core of capitalism. Through no fault of the businessman, it was constantly threatened with satiety, satiety spelled economic shrinkage" (The Worldly Philosophers, 253). Since Keynes believed that the economy "lived in the shadow of collapse" (Breese 195), there had to be a tonic or catalyst to jump-start things, similar to enzymes for cells. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was just the catalyst or tonic needed. In order to boost the morale of the people, government investment was necessary. The specific, planned, and coordinated effort (the "golden panacea") of the government would produce employment even if the government assumed mounting debt to do so. And the employment it would produce would be low-paying service jobs with no benefits leaving wages stagnant because of inflation (hidden-tax) due to printing money like it is toilet paper. If there was any lack of investment from business, according to Keynes, the government must pick up the slack and invest in the economy.
Keynes recommended these theories in his book, not only for the United States but many other nations as well. Breese mentions that it is probable that Keynes was not arguing for a permanent solution but rather a temporary solution to sluggish growth, high unemployment, and general recession signs. I, however, do not agree with this sentiment (the very rare time I have disagreed with Breese). I don't agree because when he was asked, "yes, this appears to work in the short term, but what about the long-term consequences?" Keynes's reply was "in the long term, we are all dead." So obviously, Keynes didn't care much about the children of his day and their future. Clearly, he did not have a fiduciary mindset. But not only that, what about the business community? They seem to have a general mistrust in the government and its role through stifling regulation. There is more bureaucratic red tap through smothering bureaucrats and although government entities, such as the SEC or Securities Exchange Commission, are supposed to enforce ethics on Wall Street, most know they are useless. Instead, there are government guarantees of financial institutions like the banks through tax-payer money. Also, how was this philosophy related to the labor unions that kept wages viable? The result of all this has been the ruin of free-market capitalism.
Keynes's economic theory can be summed up in one sentence: Government is God. This is why we have seen this nation go from free-market Capitalism to Socialism and in Socialism, Government is God! Government is the final resource, it has the solution for every problem, and it can create something out of nothing (which obviously is not true because that violates the law of cause and effect). Keynesian economics has a people addicted to the artificial money supply and explains why we have a national debt climbing to $21 trillion and there seems to be no ceiling. As Breese lucidly points out, "from what source can we continue to borrow ad infinitum the money that is needed in larger and larger amounts for the government to be the nurturer and manager of everything?" (197). Because of this, the government started issuing bonds during WW II to help finance the elevator of deficit spending and has even resorted to buying those very bonds with more money printed out of thin air. This happened during the economic crisis of 2008 when the government instituted a massive bond-buying program to help finance the debt because there were not enough people willing to buy the bonds. They simply did not want to invest in the debt.
As money has continued to be printed backed by nothing, no gold or silver, the integrity of the whole system has declined significantly and frankly, is in quick descent. Once upon a time, large government deficits were an embarrassment to the politicians but not so today. Since Nixon made a surprising public confession, "I am a Keynesian," no one has cared much about balancing the budget, reducing the national debt, and reducing expenditures. Even though Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman Act in 1985, which required the deficit to be reduced each year until expenditures matched government income so government obligation would go down, it turned out to be "chimerical promise" (Breese 198). So how long can the government continue with its obligations? There is no safety factor built into Keynesian economic theory. The claim from some economists has been that the obligations will be met with the twin programs of rising population and controlled inflation. But will we have a rise in population when there are more abortions that kill the babies that will eventually become the adults who will work to pay the taxes for those social programs that the government promises to elderly people? And considering too, that fewer and fewer young adults are not getting married and not having children because the family unit has been ripped apart. Concerning inflation, well, that's a tricky business. Indeed, by its very nature, it stubbornly refuses to be controlled as it is affected by productivity, interest rates, careful management, lack of greed, competence, and so many other variables. Very few political systems have ever been able to control inflation, including dictatorships (199). But these obligations are only the tip of the iceberg when considering how global everything is today.
In the old days of isolationism, nations could argue that they were masters of their own destiny. Not so today. What happens in Asia, impacts the world, and what happens on Wall Street, impacts the global-finance markets. Everything is interconnected, "the days of stable economies in Western nations were the days in which the government served as an umpire, not as a member, of one or another of the teams. The government called the balls and strikes, but competent entrepreneurs and capable workers produced the results. Now, under its mandate to be god, the government tilts the playing field, juggles the score, and fixes the game before the last batter has appeared. By doing so, it produces a game that cannot be fairly won even by the most worthy" (Breese 200). So, as the expression goes, it is rigged before you even get started!
One could argue that government should do this, but this could be counter-argued with the fact that no one can prove that those controlling the government are the most moral, the most competent, and the most brilliant. In fact, it's the opposite! Once again, I will quote Breese, [men in government] "escalated to positions of underserved power, to positions above the level of their competence.........how else can we explain staggering debt, huge deficits, lost wars, and costly scandals? Any government that expands its control, while at the same time reducing its competence to exercise that control, will soon begin to sense the hitherto solid ground quivering beneath its feet" (200). Clearly, without a moral, ethical element woven into political and economic policy, the system will fall and collapse like a building set to dynamite.
And so for now, they (the International Banking Cartel) will continue to raise the debt ceiling by printing more and more money out of thin air. And this is being done in the aggregate.....ubiquitous sovereign debt. The Federal Reserve, the Central Bank, the IMF, and the Bank for International Settlements have all but indebted the nations of the world. This construct of a banking cartel, this paradigm, is necessary in order to facilitate the endless borrowing to the nations of the world, "in order to make this borrowing possible it has become imperative for the industrial nations of the world to set up an international economic construct" (201). The world bank, multinational commissions, and financial cartels are now necessary for international finance. Consider this quote from Carroll Quigley, a former professor from Georgetown University and author of Tragedy and Hope, "The power of financial capitalism had another far-reaching plan, 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. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The Apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks, which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht [who worked with Hitler] of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent rewards in the business world." And private corporations they are. Many people have been deceived into believing that the Federal Reserve and these other central banks, world banks, etc., are owned by governments. And this myth has been perpetuated all over. But if they were, why do these banks have stockholders? Why do they pay their own postage like corporations do? And why aren't their employees in the civil service? And why are their physical properties held in private deeds that are subject to taxation which government property is not? Because they are "an engine that has created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated. It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for its own agenda and has enlisted the government itself as its enforcer. It controls the times, it dictates business, and it affects our homes and practically everything in which you and I are interested" (Missler. Exposing the Federal Reserve, 205). This rapaciousness has no end, and their desire for power to control and dominate has no end.
The Bank for International Settlements was formed in 1930 with the funding by the Central Banks of six nations: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. In addition, three private international banks from the United States also assisted in financing the establishment of the BIS. It is the Central Bank of Central Bankers, head-quartered for all the Industrialized nations of the world. The difference between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is that the IMF loans money directly to nations whereas the BIS loans money directly to Central Banks. Nations pay a quota to the IMF with tax-payer money. And those of us who are not fools, know that the International Banking Cartel encourages debt so they can collect more interest paid by more taxes on us, the "useless eaters." Consider this quote from Jean Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank on April 26, 2010, "More generally, the crisis has weakened the arguments of those who think that deregulation is always conducive to better functioning markets. We have learned once again that markets cannot function properly without an effective regulatory and supervisory infrastructure. Governments, central banks, international institutions, and globally agreed prudential standards and codes are the means why which we collectively speak to avail ourselves of this global public good of global economic stability." Only the useful idiots that Lenin spoke of would agree with this! Yes, some regulation is necessary considering man has an inherent proclivity towards self. I'm certainly not against monitoring financial markets. Isn't that what the SEC is supposed to do? Perhaps, if they did their job, the economic crisis of 2008 never would have happened. But more than anything, and more than likely this was a crisis that was engineered so the powers that be could get more power as President Obama said in one of his press conferences (during the economic crisis) that the Federal Reserve needs more power. This had already been achieved in 1980 when the Monetary Control Act was passed that "expanded the power and reach of the Federal Reserve system by giving them control over all depository institutions, whether or not the banks are members of the so-called Federal Reserve system. This act, among other things, gave the Federal Reserve the power to use the debt of foreign nations as collateral for the printing of Federal Reserve notes" (Missler 210). The Federal Reserve simply has no collateral left to print endlessly because they are writing checks against the illusion of compound interest (another tenet of Keynesian theory, fractional reserve banking). They are essentially writing bad checks! How is this legal? If the average Joe printing money because he was having liquidity issues, he would be arrested and charged with a felony. So, when you consider that man generally is hard of hearing, financial collapses will continue to repeat themselves over and over and history will not serve as a lesson to learn from.
So how long will this stream of money continue to flow? And when will they decide to set up a new financial and political structure? Keynes succeeded in positioning the nations of the world in such a way that they must come together under a new form of international control. The reality is that now, the world is headed toward an international management committee or a world government. The game of chess ends in checkmate and that checkmate will be America. Because America is the net debtor nation of the world when the time bomb explodes, will Keynes be here with a new theory to rescue us? And yet, the Keynesian economic theory is peddled in colleges and financial institutions everywhere. Keynes has far too many avid followers because his economic theory appeases the minds of those that want quick solutions to complicated problems and who use it as an excuse to live a life of economic dissipation.
Keynes believed however that this view was flawed. He stated that the conventional belief didn't get us out of the Great Depression and in no way was a guarantee (well, duh! Is anything guaranteed today except death and taxes?). According to Keynes, just because the businessman had good intentions for production and plant building using low-interest rates, didn't mean the economy would suddenly awaken from the dead. Keynes also asserted that the missing piece of the "old" theory was that there would be insufficient money in savings at the bottom of the business cycle to reduce interest rates that stimulate the economy again and cause the cycle to move upward. So, for Keynes the stimulate necessary to cause the economy to move upward towards prosperity from a depression "did not lie in static values of savings and investment.....[but] rather, that it was enter-prise that caused an upward economic movement" (194). Keynes also argued that enterprise and business investment were not always a constant, dependable thing because if a business overextended their product it would produce a supply beyond the demand and in would prove quite costly reducing profits for the business. The simple law of supply and demand is applied. So again, the businessman could not be expected to invest constantly.
Keynes articulated the general tenets of his economic theories in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Breese states that the treatise is complicated and makes for demanding reading so he quotes Robert Heilbroner's uncomplicated view,
First, an economy in depression could stay there. There was nothing inherent in the economic mechanism situation to pull it out. One could have "equilibrium" with unemployment, even massive unemployment. Second, prosperity depended on investment. If business spending for capital equipment fell, a spiral of contraction would begin. Only if business investment rose would a spiral of expansion follow. And third, investment was an undependable drive wheel for the economy. Uncertainty, not assurance, lay at the very core of capitalism. Through no fault of the businessman, it was constantly threatened with satiety, satiety spelled economic shrinkage" (The Worldly Philosophers, 253). Since Keynes believed that the economy "lived in the shadow of collapse" (Breese 195), there had to be a tonic or catalyst to jump-start things, similar to enzymes for cells. Roosevelt's "New Deal" was just the catalyst or tonic needed. In order to boost the morale of the people, government investment was necessary. The specific, planned, and coordinated effort (the "golden panacea") of the government would produce employment even if the government assumed mounting debt to do so. And the employment it would produce would be low-paying service jobs with no benefits leaving wages stagnant because of inflation (hidden-tax) due to printing money like it is toilet paper. If there was any lack of investment from business, according to Keynes, the government must pick up the slack and invest in the economy.
Keynes recommended these theories in his book, not only for the United States but many other nations as well. Breese mentions that it is probable that Keynes was not arguing for a permanent solution but rather a temporary solution to sluggish growth, high unemployment, and general recession signs. I, however, do not agree with this sentiment (the very rare time I have disagreed with Breese). I don't agree because when he was asked, "yes, this appears to work in the short term, but what about the long-term consequences?" Keynes's reply was "in the long term, we are all dead." So obviously, Keynes didn't care much about the children of his day and their future. Clearly, he did not have a fiduciary mindset. But not only that, what about the business community? They seem to have a general mistrust in the government and its role through stifling regulation. There is more bureaucratic red tap through smothering bureaucrats and although government entities, such as the SEC or Securities Exchange Commission, are supposed to enforce ethics on Wall Street, most know they are useless. Instead, there are government guarantees of financial institutions like the banks through tax-payer money. Also, how was this philosophy related to the labor unions that kept wages viable? The result of all this has been the ruin of free-market capitalism.
Keynes's economic theory can be summed up in one sentence: Government is God. This is why we have seen this nation go from free-market Capitalism to Socialism and in Socialism, Government is God! Government is the final resource, it has the solution for every problem, and it can create something out of nothing (which obviously is not true because that violates the law of cause and effect). Keynesian economics has a people addicted to the artificial money supply and explains why we have a national debt climbing to $21 trillion and there seems to be no ceiling. As Breese lucidly points out, "from what source can we continue to borrow ad infinitum the money that is needed in larger and larger amounts for the government to be the nurturer and manager of everything?" (197). Because of this, the government started issuing bonds during WW II to help finance the elevator of deficit spending and has even resorted to buying those very bonds with more money printed out of thin air. This happened during the economic crisis of 2008 when the government instituted a massive bond-buying program to help finance the debt because there were not enough people willing to buy the bonds. They simply did not want to invest in the debt.
As money has continued to be printed backed by nothing, no gold or silver, the integrity of the whole system has declined significantly and frankly, is in quick descent. Once upon a time, large government deficits were an embarrassment to the politicians but not so today. Since Nixon made a surprising public confession, "I am a Keynesian," no one has cared much about balancing the budget, reducing the national debt, and reducing expenditures. Even though Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman Act in 1985, which required the deficit to be reduced each year until expenditures matched government income so government obligation would go down, it turned out to be "chimerical promise" (Breese 198). So how long can the government continue with its obligations? There is no safety factor built into Keynesian economic theory. The claim from some economists has been that the obligations will be met with the twin programs of rising population and controlled inflation. But will we have a rise in population when there are more abortions that kill the babies that will eventually become the adults who will work to pay the taxes for those social programs that the government promises to elderly people? And considering too, that fewer and fewer young adults are not getting married and not having children because the family unit has been ripped apart. Concerning inflation, well, that's a tricky business. Indeed, by its very nature, it stubbornly refuses to be controlled as it is affected by productivity, interest rates, careful management, lack of greed, competence, and so many other variables. Very few political systems have ever been able to control inflation, including dictatorships (199). But these obligations are only the tip of the iceberg when considering how global everything is today.
In the old days of isolationism, nations could argue that they were masters of their own destiny. Not so today. What happens in Asia, impacts the world, and what happens on Wall Street, impacts the global-finance markets. Everything is interconnected, "the days of stable economies in Western nations were the days in which the government served as an umpire, not as a member, of one or another of the teams. The government called the balls and strikes, but competent entrepreneurs and capable workers produced the results. Now, under its mandate to be god, the government tilts the playing field, juggles the score, and fixes the game before the last batter has appeared. By doing so, it produces a game that cannot be fairly won even by the most worthy" (Breese 200). So, as the expression goes, it is rigged before you even get started!
One could argue that government should do this, but this could be counter-argued with the fact that no one can prove that those controlling the government are the most moral, the most competent, and the most brilliant. In fact, it's the opposite! Once again, I will quote Breese, [men in government] "escalated to positions of underserved power, to positions above the level of their competence.........how else can we explain staggering debt, huge deficits, lost wars, and costly scandals? Any government that expands its control, while at the same time reducing its competence to exercise that control, will soon begin to sense the hitherto solid ground quivering beneath its feet" (200). Clearly, without a moral, ethical element woven into political and economic policy, the system will fall and collapse like a building set to dynamite.
And so for now, they (the International Banking Cartel) will continue to raise the debt ceiling by printing more and more money out of thin air. And this is being done in the aggregate.....ubiquitous sovereign debt. The Federal Reserve, the Central Bank, the IMF, and the Bank for International Settlements have all but indebted the nations of the world. This construct of a banking cartel, this paradigm, is necessary in order to facilitate the endless borrowing to the nations of the world, "in order to make this borrowing possible it has become imperative for the industrial nations of the world to set up an international economic construct" (201). The world bank, multinational commissions, and financial cartels are now necessary for international finance. Consider this quote from Carroll Quigley, a former professor from Georgetown University and author of Tragedy and Hope, "The power of financial capitalism had another far-reaching plan, 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. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The Apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks, which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht [who worked with Hitler] of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent rewards in the business world." And private corporations they are. Many people have been deceived into believing that the Federal Reserve and these other central banks, world banks, etc., are owned by governments. And this myth has been perpetuated all over. But if they were, why do these banks have stockholders? Why do they pay their own postage like corporations do? And why aren't their employees in the civil service? And why are their physical properties held in private deeds that are subject to taxation which government property is not? Because they are "an engine that has created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated. It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for its own agenda and has enlisted the government itself as its enforcer. It controls the times, it dictates business, and it affects our homes and practically everything in which you and I are interested" (Missler. Exposing the Federal Reserve, 205). This rapaciousness has no end, and their desire for power to control and dominate has no end.
The Bank for International Settlements was formed in 1930 with the funding by the Central Banks of six nations: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. In addition, three private international banks from the United States also assisted in financing the establishment of the BIS. It is the Central Bank of Central Bankers, head-quartered for all the Industrialized nations of the world. The difference between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is that the IMF loans money directly to nations whereas the BIS loans money directly to Central Banks. Nations pay a quota to the IMF with tax-payer money. And those of us who are not fools, know that the International Banking Cartel encourages debt so they can collect more interest paid by more taxes on us, the "useless eaters." Consider this quote from Jean Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank on April 26, 2010, "More generally, the crisis has weakened the arguments of those who think that deregulation is always conducive to better functioning markets. We have learned once again that markets cannot function properly without an effective regulatory and supervisory infrastructure. Governments, central banks, international institutions, and globally agreed prudential standards and codes are the means why which we collectively speak to avail ourselves of this global public good of global economic stability." Only the useful idiots that Lenin spoke of would agree with this! Yes, some regulation is necessary considering man has an inherent proclivity towards self. I'm certainly not against monitoring financial markets. Isn't that what the SEC is supposed to do? Perhaps, if they did their job, the economic crisis of 2008 never would have happened. But more than anything, and more than likely this was a crisis that was engineered so the powers that be could get more power as President Obama said in one of his press conferences (during the economic crisis) that the Federal Reserve needs more power. This had already been achieved in 1980 when the Monetary Control Act was passed that "expanded the power and reach of the Federal Reserve system by giving them control over all depository institutions, whether or not the banks are members of the so-called Federal Reserve system. This act, among other things, gave the Federal Reserve the power to use the debt of foreign nations as collateral for the printing of Federal Reserve notes" (Missler 210). The Federal Reserve simply has no collateral left to print endlessly because they are writing checks against the illusion of compound interest (another tenet of Keynesian theory, fractional reserve banking). They are essentially writing bad checks! How is this legal? If the average Joe printing money because he was having liquidity issues, he would be arrested and charged with a felony. So, when you consider that man generally is hard of hearing, financial collapses will continue to repeat themselves over and over and history will not serve as a lesson to learn from.
So how long will this stream of money continue to flow? And when will they decide to set up a new financial and political structure? Keynes succeeded in positioning the nations of the world in such a way that they must come together under a new form of international control. The reality is that now, the world is headed toward an international management committee or a world government. The game of chess ends in checkmate and that checkmate will be America. Because America is the net debtor nation of the world when the time bomb explodes, will Keynes be here with a new theory to rescue us? And yet, the Keynesian economic theory is peddled in colleges and financial institutions everywhere. Keynes has far too many avid followers because his economic theory appeases the minds of those that want quick solutions to complicated problems and who use it as an excuse to live a life of economic dissipation.
Citations:
Quotes and paraphrases from:
Dave Breese. Seven Men Who Rule The World From The Grave. Moody's Publishers. Chicago, Ill. 1990.
Various Arthurs. Steeling The Mind Of America. Vol. II. New Leaf Press. Green Forest, AR. 1996. Excerpts from "Exposing the Federal Reserve" by Chuck Missler.
This Fabulous Century: 1900-1910. Time-Life Books. New York, NY. 1969.
Robert Heilbroner. The Worldly Philosophers. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. 1986.
