Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Teasing polo by employers and banks
If there is money ... so there is not is SHAME
"Although Spain output would be dramatic, the euro is not a viable system"
If money today, nothing is printed without any support ... what is it that prevents not print everything that man needs?
The only possible answer is ...
to continue the systematic pillaging of Zion and their corporations of all countries resources, both public and private.
The need to involve the shortage of money, makes many are forced to sell for a song what others buy, to make matters worse, with no interest free money by the Fed, ECB and Bank of Japan.
Money, which certainly becomes debt, then we pay all other religiously.
And for the second time and to make matters worse, due to which above do not help to pay as they should, because they evade all they can and pay the minimum, the same that through usury and our money are not leaving poorer rats.
To say that no money is to have little shame, especially when the ECB is dedicated to print thousands of millions of euros every year.
Money is a more or less agreed fiction. And if not, they should ask who created the bitcoin, a currency without backing behind (or state, or gold or goods, or nothing), he has made him a multimillionaire.
The ECB rescues banks and Zionist companies, but not aa real economy and people.
It is foolish not to think that if the ECB print what you have to print to save banks and businesses do not print a little more to lift the real economy and help reduce inequality.
If it does not because this way makes it possible to continue the savage plundering of heritage assets and resources of countries and individuals.And to make matters worse, all with our own money created out of nothing from the ECB that lends interest and we pay others for decades religiously.
If states are not helping people, we will be citizens themselves who create our own currency in order to survive with dignity.
Armak of Odelot
"Although Spain output would be dramatic, the euro is not a viable system"
By Andrés Villena / ctxt
Interview with Ann Pettifor / Economist. Author of 'The production of money. How to break the power of the banks'
Mainstream economics does not forgive dissidents.
Although there have been many economists who, with great success, foresaw the financial crisis, few have had the opportunity to explain to a mass audience.
The main consequence is that we have not learned the key lessons.
One of these lies in the very nature of money.
Ann Pettifor (South Africa, 1947), director of Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME) and honorary professor at the City University of London, has published production money. How tobreak the power of banks (Lynx Books, 2017), a brilliant and accessible test that reveals what money is and why we have not known until now.
According Pettifor , we have much more power than we could imagine, so that the "yes we can" could even acquire scientific category.
If I had only a few minutes to convey to people a message about what money really is, what try to tear down harmful myths?
I think the most damaging is the conception of money as a commodity, such as gold, silver ... or own bitcoin .
The money really is essentially a "promise to pay".
What has happened is that gold or silver, sometimes, have shown that promise. It is very important for women in particular, a correct understanding of money, because it's not complicated.
When you bring your credit card to a store, do not you trade for a camera, but the samples and, in so doing, prove that he can trust you because you have an agreement with a bank.
This confidence is what gives you purchasing power to buy and allowing the seller sells.
And it has some magic, because when you use the card, you create money out of nothing, which is wonderful and, therefore, must be properly regulated. It is important that women know that our monetary system has been captured by an elite largely composed of men.
And how would you explain in simple terms the capture of the monetary system?
Imagine an ancient people ... then it existed credit. Imagine a hairdresser and a man who is dedicated to repairing the roofs.
Man goes to the hairdresser cut her hair and, in return, promised to pay reparándole the roof.
In the village there is someone everyone trusts, say, a priest.
This tells the man: "You have to keep your promise; If you do not, I'll go for you " .
And then the man repairs the roof to the hairdresser.
But the hairdresser begins to accumulate several promises to pay because he has cut her hair many people and his son, who is betting on the town square with his friends, he asks the box containing the promises and promises that will bet with them and give you back an even greater amount.And she believes him.
He plays it all, you lose and go home with nothing.
That's our financial system: where is the priest was to monitor what was going on ?
Our economists told us not to worry and certain people have wagered all our pensions and savings and also have lost them .
Our monetary system has been captured by an elite largely composed of men
It is a clear example. He says he has always existed credit. But what about bartering? It's in all the textbooks of Economics ...
Archaeologists confirm that we have had credit systems for over five thousand years ago; barter has been an exception and was practiced only with someone you did not know, someone who will not trust.
It has always been normal credit. Money is credit.
The problem is that if you think money is like gold, the immediate consequence is that believe that there is only a certain amount of money.
Which automatically leads to the idea of scarcity so characteristic of the classical economists ...
Exact. Keep in mind that money is a set of promises that I make, and as a human being can perform many activities to fulfill a promise.
If our economic activity is limited by the amount of gold, then those responsible for managing the money we say that "no money" to fund a hospital, another school, etc.
The men who control the current financial system want to think that there is a finite amount of money, when in fact it is not finite at all.
If we can physically build a hospital because we have the physical and human resources, that means we can do ... and money is the social system that allows us to carry it out.
However, since it is a powerful and magical tool in a sense, it is imperative to be well regulated: we are human and imperfect, we violate promises, delude ...
It takes a tribal chief, a priest or whatever to ensure that promises are kept.
The Church, laws and courts have controlled these relations for centuries, making possible a monetary system that could not have existed otherwise.
The state has been corrupted by finance, which have tainted the whole society
We can do whatever we want ... But if we print money unwise way, provoke inflation ...
That is very marked in the population. Returning to the old town of principle, let us imagine that the promises hairdresser cut the hair of everyone in one day, something that is impossible because it has the physical ability to do it.
Then you get to the situation in which this hairstylist receives too much money, because he has made too many promises for services that could be provided.
Inflation is then produced; Similarly , if you say you can not cut more people hair , how much money will be greatly reduced.
If you make more promises Account or less, you increase or youreduce the money supply , causing inflation or deflation , respectively.
It is also important to say that the "print money", because the money just is not printed .
97% of payment promises take the form of a credit card or debit card.
It is banking, intangible money. The system must be well managed.
In Spain, for example, no investment, no jobs are created, not innova ... do not do many of the things you should be doing to fight climate change.And tell us is that "no money" . That's ridiculous.
The idea of scarcity forces us to think that there is a certain amount of money managed by someone, a group of men who do not give us money because we've been naughty, as if we were children: that's primitive economy.
Central banks do not print anything more than a small proportion of the money used.
Since the Bank of England to be created in 1694, we know that the monetary system works in a completely different way, but there has always been a group of economists who argued that money lay in the amount of gold or existing silver and therefore it was finite.
So the idea of creation of money is not as intuitive ... must know how to explain well ...
That monetarist idea that the central bank is printing money is a terrible lie.
Do you know who "prints" money? You and I. Every time we asked for a loan, help to create money.
The bank has power over me, of course: can not evaluate me and grant me a loan, but I can also ask and give up the money will not be created.
We are all creators of money.
So if the economy is bad and have no confidence in it, if we do not invest, then the money supply contracts; On the contrary, when we feel confident about the economy or our politicians, as in 2007, then we ask a lot of money borrowed and money supply grows.
And this is something that many economists do not want to understand.
But there 's more: the government is also a borrower who, to borrow money, money supply increases.
In fact, the tragedy of "austerity" is that we now lack confidence, do not we borrow or invest, many do not work, the money supply shrinks and above, the government tries to further depress the economy.
The combination of mistrust and government austerity is causing devastation posed by youth unemployment rate in Spain.
It is a tragedy that also has been imposed by governments, by the European Central Bank and the European elite. Why is this happening? Because women do not understand the problem and let them do.
And what they do, do they do it out of ignorance or ideology do so?
It is an ideology, understood as a set of ideas that meet the established interests.
It is possible that someone who is not an economist it's really hard to understand what I'm going to say next:
Typically, economists do not understand or explain the money or debt or banks.
It is something that is not even in textbooks.
Even Paul Krugman , a good economist in many ways explains the money from the fact that the saver deposits money in a bank and then another person comes and borrows .
It's a medieval idea! That does not happen from 1694!
How could someone so smart who knows economics does not understand that?
The rich use what we have all built and pay nothing for it
But then it does more harm Krugman spreading these myths about money than any economist ultraliberal ...
Exactly! We have had discussions with Krugman and there comes a point where you do not want to hear.
I've even come to hear an expert from the International Monetary Fund say that money "is a matter of third order". The profession is in crisis: it's as if physicists do not understand the law of gravity!
John Maynard Keynes , who was an old - fashioned capitalist who wanted to save capitalism from itself, did understand the nature of money, and had a hard time explaining it to others. It is something that causes us alot of emotionality, being so related to our survival.
President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, has been exposed by the media as El Salvador euro.
However, you ensure that only the ECB's policies favor the rich.Why?
First, we have to give some credit to Draghi , because it provided confidence while austerity plans were greatly damaging national economies.
But he can not do more, no more tools and all he has done has been to rescue the bankers.
The QE (quantitative easing) has enabled the rich to borrow more money to buy assets such as land, houses in London, artwork , etc.
Only the rich can afford these things.
Buy a picasso for 300,000 euros, put it in a vault gallery in Dubai and another 600,000 are purchased, keeping the former as collateral.
Meanwhile, there are many unemployed people due to austerity and this explains the huge increase in inequality.
Then there is no effect "trickle down" (drip of wealth to the popular classes), for a change ...
Absolutely. Mario Draghi has helped banks to increase their lending and asset s, but has not made these banks to lend in the national economy.
For example, Spanish banks are not lending in Spain but in the rest of the world. They do not lend to the real economy because they see profitability and also lack confidence due to austerity policies.
I also lend in such a weak economy as a banker, I'd be scared. Besides, banks are not clean at all: keep many debts.
To make matters worse, and even though they are the taxpayers who rescued them, banks are betting the village youth, as the example and speculating with money.
And this has not been able to fix the European Central Bank : here must enter fiscal policy.
Speaking of the eurozone, the million dollar question for Spain, which still do not dare to do it aloud, is whether we would be better off outside the euro. What do you think about this taboo?
There is a strong feeling in Europe of unity and peace, especially for the suffering during the two wars. Nobody wants that to happen again.
P ero now Germany dominates the European Union. There is a separation between the monetary power and the prosecutor does not happen in the UK, where the Bank of England supports the government, keeping interest rates to a minimum.
Banks are all legally nationalized. If it were not for the taxpayers, they would be bankrupt
But it's over, leaders like Eurogroup chairman Jeroen Dijsselbloem demonstrate their xenophobic statements that the institutional architecture of the euro zone will not change at all ...
Here is the dominant ideology in all its fullness:
It is obscene to consider that entire nations are made up of losers and playboys . I'm a big fan of the work of economist John Law.
This, in 1704, complained that the Scots were considered lazy and drinkers; Law replied saying that this was actually the malfunctioning of the monetary system.
Law, before Adam Smith, understood the monetary system and found that it was this which made them less productive to the Scots. Unfortunately, three hundred years later this ideology is still alive.
Do you think, then, that Spain could be better organized with its own currency?
I do not advocate an exit from the euro , because this could be enormously destructive to Spain, racking up too much debt in hard currency ...
I have been very active in the Campaign for the Jubilee Debt, arguing that there are a number of countries that can not pay their debts and on which debt remains extremely limiting their ability to develop.
The Bankruptcy Act prevents those responsible for companies entering this situation go to prison ; the law protects them , but this does not happen in any way with the countries.
There should be a framework for resolving these situations and, if Spain left the euro and debt crisis occurred, should be able to devise a mechanism to resolve how certain debts originated and who is responsible for each.
On the other hand,
although the output of the euro by Spain would be dramatic, I do not think the euro is viable :
too many divergent interests, social tensions, unemployment, unrest and also the rise of fascism.
New fascism. Does Donald Trump victory or threat of Marine Le Pen respond, basically, to debts that can not be paid?
Yes. I'm not very critical voters Donald Trump , as they responded to someone who promised to protect them , something that Clinton did not.
His victory is the result of uncontrolled financialization of the economy, of which a small elite that controls everything you benefit, as in 1929.
Advocates public control of finances, but even certain positions on the left claim that the state "is bad businessman and banker worse." And then there are capital flight ...
What happens is that the state has been corrupted by the financial system, which has corrupted social life to the full, look even in sports. And with regard to capital flight, while it is true that we have allowed youngsters playing in the square with money from the hairdresser take him everywhere, it is also true that we should bring that capital back.
They will say you can not because these capitalists have much power, but we have a lot of power too.
Note that the rich go to London to perform contracts because, as we have seen, are the legal and judicial system that protects contracts "promises to pay".
That law will not protect the same in countries such as Russia, the Philippines and India.
Then the rich in these countries come to London, which is precisely where the money taxpayers have created legal systems that protect their financial contracts.
These rich must be told that if they use our infrastructure for the law to protect them, then they have to bring capital here and pay taxes. And if not, we will not allow them to use this legal coverage.
Taxpayers will fund all: the police, the legal system, the judiciary ... the rich use what we have built and pay nothing in return.
It is time that we realize our power and we can use that way prevent financed and built with our money institutions.
If you want easy money from the European Central Bank , then they have to bring back their capital.
Any policy requires limits and boundaries: if you live in the US, can not receive a British pension.
Borders are important, but the great Finanza hates these borders, these boundaries . And we have marcárselos.
One last question: do you think that Bankia could be our first public bank in a recovery from financial institutions if we propusiéramos?
Of course. In fact, if it were not for the ECB, all banks would be bankrupt . Actually, it is as if all banks were nationalized:
the problem is that we do not exercise any power over them. They behave as if the taxpayer had not saved, and this is our fault.
It is a legal nationalization we have to become real. I am not against bailouts, but I think you have to put them terms and conditions .
By not asking anything in return, they can not believe how lucky they have had and, like a spoiled child, are doing what they please, and above them are not punished, so they lose control.
The financial system has corrupted everything.
