Globalisation debt & banking
BB. I was merely replying to your statement. You said, without any qualifications, that the only way money is created is for governments to issue debt. Sure, the video suggests private banks create money, but that's not what you said.
So, the Reserve Bank of Australia is not a private bank. I don't know if that should make us feel better, or not.
What happened when Allco and Babcock and Brown went broke, or Ansett for that matter? Or the Icelandic banks, or Greece in the very near future? Did all the loans that were not repaid mean that money disappeared out of the system entirely? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? [Don't ask me, I don't know]. I do know that despite the assertion that the Icelanders told the central banks to "pound sand", that they look like having to pay back depositors in the UK and the Netherlands for many years, starting in 2017. And there are only 300,000 Icelanders
If I and thousands of other people my age have diligently paid off our mortgages and loans and owe nothing to anyone, does that mean money has been leaving the system? Or does the fact that we now are accumulators of cash in our bank accounts just make the cycle repeat. Thank goodness for government guarantees on savings accounts, in that case.
You know, we all really need to go outside and play, and not sit hunched over our screens trying to make sense of this stuff. Go and look up at the stars, or watch the waves roll in. In the larger context, it doesn't matter much. Seeya.
So, the Reserve Bank of Australia is not a private bank. I don't know if that should make us feel better, or not.
What happened when Allco and Babcock and Brown went broke, or Ansett for that matter? Or the Icelandic banks, or Greece in the very near future? Did all the loans that were not repaid mean that money disappeared out of the system entirely? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? [Don't ask me, I don't know]. I do know that despite the assertion that the Icelanders told the central banks to "pound sand", that they look like having to pay back depositors in the UK and the Netherlands for many years, starting in 2017. And there are only 300,000 Icelanders
If I and thousands of other people my age have diligently paid off our mortgages and loans and owe nothing to anyone, does that mean money has been leaving the system? Or does the fact that we now are accumulators of cash in our bank accounts just make the cycle repeat. Thank goodness for government guarantees on savings accounts, in that case.
You know, we all really need to go outside and play, and not sit hunched over our screens trying to make sense of this stuff. Go and look up at the stars, or watch the waves roll in. In the larger context, it doesn't matter much. Seeya.
Last edited by Captain Gidday; 27th Sep 2011 at 03:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, the video suggests private banks create money, but that's not what you said
So, the Reserve Bank of Australia is not a private bank. I don't know if that should make us feel better, or not.
In essence to gain access to the global credit market Central Banks, private or government have to be part of the BIS system. Therefore, the BIS controls all central banking - in effect controlling them. The international banking cartel exerts its influence through this BIS mechanism. The Australian government has far less control over the RBA than we are lead to believe.
Here's a list of some countries that weren't aligned with the BIS system: Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea & Syria, interesting isn't it.
What happened when Allco and Babcock and Brown went broke, or Ansett for that matter?
C.V. Myers - The Coming Deflation (1976)
Therefore, in these cases whoever held the debt takes a haircut (discount) of somewhere between 0 & 100%. Most likely banks & pension funds held bonds over these companies, and they incur a loss of capital.
When bailouts happen, the central bank buys these bonds at par with freshly created credit money. This is exactly what happened in the US with the toxic mortgage debt. Banks were "made whole" while the Fed became owner of the toxic waste. This has the effect of devaluing each current dollar - and this shows up as inflation, hence the rise in commodities since the bailout began in 08
If I and thousands of other people my age have diligently paid off our mortgages and loans and owe nothing to anyone, does that mean money has been leaving the system? Or does the fact that we now are accumulators of cash in our bank accounts just make the cycle repeat. Thank goodness for government guarantees on savings accounts, in that case.
You know, we all really need to go outside and play, and not sit hunched over our screens trying to make sense of this stuff. Go and look up at the stars, or watch the waves roll in.
What happened when Allco and Babcock and Brown went broke, or Ansett for that matter?
Yes, yes, yes. I know the debt holders take a haircut, I was one in BBL. I was more wondering how this effects the fiat money system. Does the removing of debt out of the system have a geared effect in reverse?
If I and thousands of other people my age ....owe nothing to anyone, does that mean money has been leaving the system
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the removing of debt out of the system have a geared effect in reverse?
However, these almost never occurs as it would cause the money supply to drop - deflation, an anathema to central bankers (see Bernanke "Helicopter Ben" speech in 2002).
Lets do a hypothetical. You take out a mortgage, you sign two documents a loan note and pledge the house as collateral. On the day of settlement, the bank simply deposits the money in the vendors account through a ledger entry - it has created money out of thin air with your mortgage note as the asset to back the credit money created.
The vendor goes to the bank and withdraws his funds in cash and spends the money immediately. It has entered circulation, it is beyond the control of the bank.
However, you now default on your loan - the money has been created, but the asset (loan note) is now worth significantly less. Its a bad market and the bank only realises 50% of the loan after foreclosing & sale. The loan loss is deducted from the shareholders capital. If enough loans default, shareholder capital is wiped out and the bank is insolvent.
The central bank decides to bailout the bank, as many loans have defaulted. It buys the mortgage note at par, so it creates money out of thin air and exchanges it for the mortgage note. The bank is free to then loan out this money again, at a leverage of 10:1. This process inflates the money supply (as the original money created is still in circulation) and eventually leads to higher prices as there is more money in circulation chasing a fixed number of goods.
The key point is that the credit money created out of thin air has been converted to cash and enters the circulation. If a loan goes bad, there is no method to cancel or extinguish the individual money units "backed" by this particular loan. In theory each currency unit could be identified and cancelled as its backing failed. This would lead to a situation where random holders of currency would suddenly see some of their money become worthless as it is arbitrarily cancelled.
Instead we have a system where bailouts devalue everyone's currency just a bit - everyone pays a price through decreased purchasing power. The money supply must not be allowed to drop for any meaningful length of time or the system is mathematically guaranteed to fail.
This is why the largest outstanding derivatives are for interest rate swaps (342 Trillion as of 2009- BIS figures) used to suppress interest rates so more credit could be lent and credit quality dropped (NINJA sub-prime loans). The mantra of "growth growth growth" from governments and business is all about stimulating the growth of loans to keep the ponzi scheme going.
Demographics - yes aging will diminish the need loans adversely affect the demand for loans. This is why the banking cartel wants to "lever up" Asia. As yet they haven't reached debt saturation, and this is the only way to keep the system going now that Europe & the North America are tapped out.
Turn It Up!
Quote:
Here's a list of some countries that weren't aligned with the BIS system: Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea & Syria, interesting isn't it.
Do you really believe this crap, talk about ultra right wing American conspiracy theories. Let me guess, next you will be telling us that the banking cartel is run by faceless Jewish bankers.
Here's a list of some countries that weren't aligned with the BIS system: Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea & Syria, interesting isn't it.
Do you really believe this crap, talk about ultra right wing American conspiracy theories. Let me guess, next you will be telling us that the banking cartel is run by faceless Jewish bankers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, if you claim that I'm hanging out on those right wing conspiracy theory sites like cnbc.com and bloomberg.com, then I'm guilty as charged
Source: Libyan Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank
Source:Libyan Rebel Council Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi’s
Why would a group of rag-tag rebel fighters want to set up a central bank? I'm dying to hear your explanation.
-- Adam Smith
There are conspiracies to cheat the public all around you, just look at the Qantas Freight cartel prosecutions, Pratts VISY and the list goes on.
All I do is look around at the world, and I see the uber wealthy getting wealthier, and the average person getting poorer. The vast majority of Americans have had their wealth stripped away from them in the housing crash. The average European is about to have his wealth stripped via the EFSF bailout as the taxpayer backstops and bails out the Portugal/Ireland/Italy & Greece. I have asked myself the question why, and how can I do something to protect myself from this process.
If you really want to see the breathtaking fraud that has been committed under in full view of the regulator in the US, have a listen or read this interview of William Black, a law professor who was the chief prosecutor for the S&L crisis in the early 90's. He asks the question on why there have been no prosecutions for the financial calamity that is underway, with massive mortgage fraud, documented by the FBI in 2002: William Black: Why Nobody Went to Jail During the Credit Crisis The FBI is no longer chasing white collar criminals. If there's no conspiracy why aren't the criminals in jail?
So, if you make it through all that material and your still convinced I'm a right wing conspiracy theorist then there's no fact or reasonable argument I can present that will change your mind.
For the record, I'm neither left or right, they are simply labels to identify you with a tribe in the same category as Ford/Holden, NSW/Queensland &Essendon/Collingwood. There is only one politician in this country that I can see actually has any integrity, the good Senator X.
I'm not bringing religion into it, and I suggest you do the same. Perhaps you would care to dispute my arguments with some facts, I'm all ears.
Originally Posted by CNBC.com
Libyan Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank
Published: Monday, 28 Mar 2011 | 2:52 PM ET Text Size
By: John Carney
Senior Editor, CNBC.com
Libyan rebels in Benghazi say they have formed their own central bank.
The rebel group known as the Transitional National Council released a statement last week announcing that they have designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya, and that they have appointed a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi, according to Bloomberg.
Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.
Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.
This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.
Published: Monday, 28 Mar 2011 | 2:52 PM ET Text Size
By: John Carney
Senior Editor, CNBC.com
Libyan rebels in Benghazi say they have formed their own central bank.
The rebel group known as the Transitional National Council released a statement last week announcing that they have designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya, and that they have appointed a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi, according to Bloomberg.
Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.
Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.
This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.
Originally Posted by BLOOMBERG.com
The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision made at a March 19 meeting to establish the “Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general” of the company.
The Council also said it “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
The Council also said it “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
Why would a group of rag-tag rebel fighters want to set up a central bank? I'm dying to hear your explanation.
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
There are conspiracies to cheat the public all around you, just look at the Qantas Freight cartel prosecutions, Pratts VISY and the list goes on.
All I do is look around at the world, and I see the uber wealthy getting wealthier, and the average person getting poorer. The vast majority of Americans have had their wealth stripped away from them in the housing crash. The average European is about to have his wealth stripped via the EFSF bailout as the taxpayer backstops and bails out the Portugal/Ireland/Italy & Greece. I have asked myself the question why, and how can I do something to protect myself from this process.
If you really want to see the breathtaking fraud that has been committed under in full view of the regulator in the US, have a listen or read this interview of William Black, a law professor who was the chief prosecutor for the S&L crisis in the early 90's. He asks the question on why there have been no prosecutions for the financial calamity that is underway, with massive mortgage fraud, documented by the FBI in 2002: William Black: Why Nobody Went to Jail During the Credit Crisis The FBI is no longer chasing white collar criminals. If there's no conspiracy why aren't the criminals in jail?
So, if you make it through all that material and your still convinced I'm a right wing conspiracy theorist then there's no fact or reasonable argument I can present that will change your mind.
For the record, I'm neither left or right, they are simply labels to identify you with a tribe in the same category as Ford/Holden, NSW/Queensland &Essendon/Collingwood. There is only one politician in this country that I can see actually has any integrity, the good Senator X.
I'm not bringing religion into it, and I suggest you do the same. Perhaps you would care to dispute my arguments with some facts, I'm all ears.
Last edited by breakfastburrito; 28th Sep 2011 at 04:03.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I do is look around at the world, and I see the uber wealthy getting wealthier, and the average person getting poorer.
There is only one politician in this country that I can see actually has any integrity, the good Senator X.
However I would totally agree that the vast majority, in all of the Australian political parties, and their leaders, plus the majority of independents, are <brown smelly stuff>.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a list of some countries that weren't aligned with the BIS system: Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea & Syria, interesting isn't it.
So of all the countries that didn't have a private central banking system North Korea is the only the one the US hasn't invaded.......
Interesting quote here from Wikipedia on Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia was once a regional industrial power and economic success. From 1960 to 1980, annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaged 6.1 percent, medical care was free, literacy was 91 percent, and life expectancy was 72 years. But after a decade of Western economic ministrations and five years of disintegration, war, boycott, and embargo, the economy of Yugoslavia collapsed.
Turn It Up!
The countries you have outlined were either war torn or despotic dictatorships, or both. It is a good thing they are not part of the BIS. The idea that a newly installed government in Libya should take control of the central bank and the monetary system is also complately sensible. Especially considering Gaddafi and his family were in control of it and on the run. No conspiracy here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about those nut jobs at the Asia Times:
Asia Times: Libya all about oil, or central banking?
The BIS vs national banks [Asia Times] By Henry C K Liu
More from those "right wing conspiracy theorists nut jobs" at the UK Daily Mail & Telegraph:
DailyMail: This saga of moral squalor shames Britain
Tony Blair's six secret visits to Col Gaddafi
Clearly the situation is far murkier than your "no conspiracy here" argument. What is the truth? We are only ever allowed to see just the thinnest slivers of what actually happens behind closed doors at the highest levels. From the crumbs that do fall off the table, it is clear that something stinks to high heaven.
No conspiracies here, move along. We will have to agree to disagree.
Libya all about oil, or central banking?
By Ellen Brown
Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank - this before they even had a government. Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal: I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.
Alex Newman wrote in the New American:
In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the "[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."
Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."
Another anomaly involves the official justification for taking up arms against Libya. Supposedly it's about human rights violations, but the evidence is contradictory. According to an article on the Fox News website on February 28:
As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body's Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya's human rights record.
The review commends Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a "priority" and for bettering its "constitutional" framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, give Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens - who are now revolting against the regime and facing bloody reprisal.
Whatever might be said of Gaddafi's personal crimes, the Libyan people seem to be thriving. A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in an appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort:
[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 US dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious.
They maintained that the international community had been misinformed about the struggle against the regime. "Tell us," they said, "who would not like such a regime?"
Even if that is just propaganda, there is no denying at least one very popular achievement of the Libyan government: it brought water to the desert by building the largest and most expensive irrigation project in history, the US$33 billion GMMR (Great Man-Made River) project. Even more than oil, water is crucial to life in Libya.
The GMMR provides 70% of the population with water for drinking and irrigation, pumping it from Libya's vast underground Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System in the south to populated coastal areas 4,000 kilometers to the north. The Libyan government has done at least some things right.
Another explanation for the assault on Libya is that it is "all about oil", but that theory too is problematic. As noted in the National Journal, the country produces only about 2% of the world's oil. Saudi Arabia alone has enough spare capacity to make up for any lost production if Libyan oil were to disappear from the market. And if it's all about oil, why the rush to set up a new central bank?
Another provocative bit of data circulating on the Net is a 2007 "Democracy Now" interview of US General Wesley Clark (Ret). In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. "I don't know!" was the response. "I guess they don't know what else to do!" Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.
The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that "[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar."
According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar", Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.
During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.
And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned ... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.
Libya not only has oil. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), its central bank has nearly 144 tonnes of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS, the IMF and their rules?
All of which prompts a closer look at the BIS rules and their effect on local economies. An article on the BIS website states that central banks in the Central Bank Governance Network are supposed to have as their single or primary objective "to preserve price stability".
They are to be kept independent from government to make sure that political considerations don't interfere with this mandate. "Price stability" means maintaining a stable money supply, even if that means burdening the people with heavy foreign debts. Central banks are discouraged from increasing the money supply by printing money and using it for the benefit of the state, either directly or as loans.
In a 2002 article in Asia Times Online titled "The BIS vs national banks" Henry Liu maintained:
BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. The BIS does to national banking systems what the IMF has done to national monetary regimes. National economies under financial globalization no longer serve national interests.
... FDI [foreign direct investment] denominated in foreign currencies, mostly dollars, has condemned many national economies into unbalanced development toward export, merely to make dollar-denominated interest payments to FDI, with little net benefit to the domestic economies.
He added, "Applying the State Theory of Money, any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation." The "state theory of money" refers to money created by governments rather than private banks.
The presumption of the rule against borrowing from the government's own central bank is that this will be inflationary, while borrowing existing money from foreign banks or the IMF will not. But all banks actually create the money they lend on their books, whether publicly owned or privately owned. Most new money today comes from bank loans. Borrowing it from the government's own central bank has the advantage that the loan is effectively interest-free. Eliminating interest has been shown to reduce the cost of public projects by an average of 50%.
And that appears to be how the Libyan system works. According to Wikipedia, the functions of the Central Bank of Libya include "issuing and regulating banknotes and coins in Libya" and "managing and issuing all state loans". Libya's wholly state-owned bank can and does issue the national currency and lend it for state purposes.
That would explain where Libya gets the money to provide free education and medical care, and to issue each young couple $50,000 in interest-free state loans. It would also explain where the country found the $33 billion to build the Great Man-Made River project. Libyans are worried that North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led air strikes are coming perilously close to this pipeline, threatening another humanitarian disaster.
So is this new war all about oil or all about banking? Maybe both - and water as well. With energy, water, and ample credit to develop the infrastructure to access them, a nation can be free of the grip of foreign creditors. And that may be the real threat of Libya: it could show the world what is possible.
Most countries don't have oil, but new technologies are being developed that could make non-oil-producing nations energy-independent, particularly if infrastructure costs are halved by borrowing from the nation's own publicly owned bank. Energy independence would free governments from the web of the international bankers, and of the need to shift production from domestic to foreign markets to service the loans.
If the Gaddafi government goes down, it will be interesting to watch whether the new central bank joins the BIS, whether the nationalized oil industry gets sold off to investors, and whether education and healthcare continue to be free.
Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, Public Banking Institute - Banking in the Public Interest. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are Web of Debt - How Banks And The Federal Reserve Are Bankrupting The Planet... and http://ellenbrown.com.
By Ellen Brown
Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank - this before they even had a government. Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal: I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.
Alex Newman wrote in the New American:
In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the "[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."
Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."
Another anomaly involves the official justification for taking up arms against Libya. Supposedly it's about human rights violations, but the evidence is contradictory. According to an article on the Fox News website on February 28:
As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body's Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya's human rights record.
The review commends Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a "priority" and for bettering its "constitutional" framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, give Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens - who are now revolting against the regime and facing bloody reprisal.
Whatever might be said of Gaddafi's personal crimes, the Libyan people seem to be thriving. A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in an appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort:
[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 US dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious.
They maintained that the international community had been misinformed about the struggle against the regime. "Tell us," they said, "who would not like such a regime?"
Even if that is just propaganda, there is no denying at least one very popular achievement of the Libyan government: it brought water to the desert by building the largest and most expensive irrigation project in history, the US$33 billion GMMR (Great Man-Made River) project. Even more than oil, water is crucial to life in Libya.
The GMMR provides 70% of the population with water for drinking and irrigation, pumping it from Libya's vast underground Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System in the south to populated coastal areas 4,000 kilometers to the north. The Libyan government has done at least some things right.
Another explanation for the assault on Libya is that it is "all about oil", but that theory too is problematic. As noted in the National Journal, the country produces only about 2% of the world's oil. Saudi Arabia alone has enough spare capacity to make up for any lost production if Libyan oil were to disappear from the market. And if it's all about oil, why the rush to set up a new central bank?
Another provocative bit of data circulating on the Net is a 2007 "Democracy Now" interview of US General Wesley Clark (Ret). In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. "I don't know!" was the response. "I guess they don't know what else to do!" Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.
The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that "[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar."
According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar", Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.
During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries. The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.
And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned ... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.
Libya not only has oil. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), its central bank has nearly 144 tonnes of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS, the IMF and their rules?
All of which prompts a closer look at the BIS rules and their effect on local economies. An article on the BIS website states that central banks in the Central Bank Governance Network are supposed to have as their single or primary objective "to preserve price stability".
They are to be kept independent from government to make sure that political considerations don't interfere with this mandate. "Price stability" means maintaining a stable money supply, even if that means burdening the people with heavy foreign debts. Central banks are discouraged from increasing the money supply by printing money and using it for the benefit of the state, either directly or as loans.
In a 2002 article in Asia Times Online titled "The BIS vs national banks" Henry Liu maintained:
BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. The BIS does to national banking systems what the IMF has done to national monetary regimes. National economies under financial globalization no longer serve national interests.
... FDI [foreign direct investment] denominated in foreign currencies, mostly dollars, has condemned many national economies into unbalanced development toward export, merely to make dollar-denominated interest payments to FDI, with little net benefit to the domestic economies.
He added, "Applying the State Theory of Money, any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation." The "state theory of money" refers to money created by governments rather than private banks.
The presumption of the rule against borrowing from the government's own central bank is that this will be inflationary, while borrowing existing money from foreign banks or the IMF will not. But all banks actually create the money they lend on their books, whether publicly owned or privately owned. Most new money today comes from bank loans. Borrowing it from the government's own central bank has the advantage that the loan is effectively interest-free. Eliminating interest has been shown to reduce the cost of public projects by an average of 50%.
And that appears to be how the Libyan system works. According to Wikipedia, the functions of the Central Bank of Libya include "issuing and regulating banknotes and coins in Libya" and "managing and issuing all state loans". Libya's wholly state-owned bank can and does issue the national currency and lend it for state purposes.
That would explain where Libya gets the money to provide free education and medical care, and to issue each young couple $50,000 in interest-free state loans. It would also explain where the country found the $33 billion to build the Great Man-Made River project. Libyans are worried that North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led air strikes are coming perilously close to this pipeline, threatening another humanitarian disaster.
So is this new war all about oil or all about banking? Maybe both - and water as well. With energy, water, and ample credit to develop the infrastructure to access them, a nation can be free of the grip of foreign creditors. And that may be the real threat of Libya: it could show the world what is possible.
Most countries don't have oil, but new technologies are being developed that could make non-oil-producing nations energy-independent, particularly if infrastructure costs are halved by borrowing from the nation's own publicly owned bank. Energy independence would free governments from the web of the international bankers, and of the need to shift production from domestic to foreign markets to service the loans.
If the Gaddafi government goes down, it will be interesting to watch whether the new central bank joins the BIS, whether the nationalized oil industry gets sold off to investors, and whether education and healthcare continue to be free.
Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, Public Banking Institute - Banking in the Public Interest. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are Web of Debt - How Banks And The Federal Reserve Are Bankrupting The Planet... and http://ellenbrown.com.
The BIS vs national banks [Asia Times] By Henry C K Liu
More from those "right wing conspiracy theorists nut jobs" at the UK Daily Mail & Telegraph:
MICHAEL BURLEIGH: This saga of moral squalor shames Britain
Last updated at 11:24 AM on 8th September 2011
They say that when supping with the Devil, you should bring a long spoon. The discovery of secret correspondence between the Labour government and the Gaddafi regime in the abandoned British ambassador’s residence in Tripoli reveals dining arrangements akin to snouts grubbing greedily together in one stinking trough.
The tone is occasionally risible. ‘Dear Muammar’, Blair begins a letter to Gaddafi on December 28, 2006, adding the Arabic New Year salutation ‘Eid mubarak’ with a toe-curling desperation to please. Maybe Gaddafi had already wished Tony ‘Happy Christmas’? I somehow doubt it.
In the following March, Blair was at it again, writing with gushing insincerity to ‘Engineer Saif’ – Gaddafi’s playboy son Saif al-Islam – thanking him for sending him a copy of his ‘interesting’ LSE thesis. That will be the plagiarised thesis Saif concocted with the help of Tony Blair’s favourite academics at the London School of Economics, an institution whose once-proud reputation has been dragged through the mud after it accepted Gaddafi’s tainted cash.
You have to pinch yourself to realise that these letters are not a spoof, but instead some of the more farcical elements in the grotesque dealings of a major western power with a flyblown desert dictatorship in North Africa whose leader was recently described by David Cameron as ‘a monster’.
We all knew that Blair had signed up to a sordid Faustian pact with Gaddafi, but to see the letters and embassy documents which have emerged in Tripoli, as well the information obtained from the office of his former Minister for Security Musa Kusa – who turned sides and fled here this spring – is to realise the true, appalling extent of the damage that has been done to Britain.
The manner in which the machinery of government and the security and intelligence forces were co-opted into highly dubious practices on Gaddafi’s behalf is staggering.
Who could have possibly believed that MI6 illegally provided the Libyan secret police with tailor-made questions to be asked of its Islamist detainees, in the sure knowledge that Gaddafi’s thugs habitually used torture?
How can we reconcile the fact that MI6 information and advice was used by Gaddafi to undermine the fundamentalist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, whose leader Abdel Hakim Belhadj was held and tortured for six years in Libyan jails, with the fact that we now proclaim him a rebel hero who has just been appointed chief of security in newly liberated Tripoli?
Perhaps the most appalling indictment of the last government’s dealings with Gaddafi comes in the form of documents leaked from the office of the dictator’s former henchman Musa Kusa – a man who used torture without compunction and was known in Libya as The Fingernail-Puller-in Chief.
These appear to show that MI6 actually helped capture Belhadj and deliver him into Gaddafi’s hands – an episode hardly likely to lead to a cordial relations with the new regime
We have heard much in recent weeks of the antics of Britain’s Special Forces heroes, as they have brilliantly directed Nato airstrikes on Gaddafi’s forces. But the documents now unearthed in Tripoli reveal that the very same SAS was involved in training the feared Khamis Brigade, commanded by one of Gaddafi’s sons and thought to have been behind some of the worst atrocities in the conflict. Ninety of these killers were even brought to Britain for instruction, before returning home to Libya with Blair’s stamp of approval. Whether that quality assurance covered the Khamis Brigade’s inclination to line rebels against a wall and shoot them is a moot point.
Of course one cannot be naive. In global politics, Western powers such as Britain have to deal with monsters and Mad Dogs – as Ronald Reagan memorably called Gaddafi.
But what is so grotesque is quite how close to him Labour became, and how unscrupulously fawning it was in carrying out his wishes.
Everything about the Labour government’s relations with Libya seems sordid, whether under Blair or Gordon Brown. And how hypocritical these two men seem given the moralising posturing they indulged in on the international scene. Both were always ready to lecture any erring Third World government, not to speak of the Chinese and Russians, on human rights while at the same time helping Gaddafi with his murderous activities.
It was back in 2004 that Blair made his deal with Gaddafi, shaking hands with the dictator amidst the kitsch surroundings of his now burnt-out palace in Tripoli.
They made an odd couple, the right-on London lawyer whose wife was a noted human rights advocate, and the rancid old tyrant.
But Blair saw political capital in embracing the monster. The ostensible reason was that Gaddafi would abandon his WMD programme, although there is no evidence that he did so. The real reason was that Shell and BP would gain extensive drilling rights in an oil and gas-rich country much nearer to Europe than the Gulf. For his part Gaddafi was fed up with being an international pariah and saw the advantage of Western investment in industry, oil and tourism.
But the deal Blair made was shameless. He was to let bygones be bygones. Gaddafi’s past support for the IRA? Think nothing of it. The gunning down of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984? Let’s forget it.
Lockerbie? Now this is where things began to unravel – for Blair and Brown ignored the potential anger of both American and Lockerbie families by releasing the bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi after Gaddafi threatened ‘holy war’ if the mass killer died in his Scottish prison.
U.S. outrage over the deaths of 270 people – most of them American citizens – was construed merely as a ‘presentational risk’, the papers now show. How typical that a party which was so obsessed with image and PR should construe such a crime in such amoral terms.
Officials also noted in the papers that Megrahi’s release would lead to suspicions that ‘the UK is prepared to do anything to maintain its commercial and other ties with Libya’.
Quite how far Labour’s leaders were prepared to go to keep those oil and gas contracts is now depressingly apparent.
Instead of congratulating himself on bringing down Gaddafi, David Cameron should be initiating a public inquiry into this episode of moral squalor, while ensuring that nothing like it occurs in our relations with the new Libya – or any foreign power – ever again.
Last updated at 11:24 AM on 8th September 2011
They say that when supping with the Devil, you should bring a long spoon. The discovery of secret correspondence between the Labour government and the Gaddafi regime in the abandoned British ambassador’s residence in Tripoli reveals dining arrangements akin to snouts grubbing greedily together in one stinking trough.
The tone is occasionally risible. ‘Dear Muammar’, Blair begins a letter to Gaddafi on December 28, 2006, adding the Arabic New Year salutation ‘Eid mubarak’ with a toe-curling desperation to please. Maybe Gaddafi had already wished Tony ‘Happy Christmas’? I somehow doubt it.
In the following March, Blair was at it again, writing with gushing insincerity to ‘Engineer Saif’ – Gaddafi’s playboy son Saif al-Islam – thanking him for sending him a copy of his ‘interesting’ LSE thesis. That will be the plagiarised thesis Saif concocted with the help of Tony Blair’s favourite academics at the London School of Economics, an institution whose once-proud reputation has been dragged through the mud after it accepted Gaddafi’s tainted cash.
You have to pinch yourself to realise that these letters are not a spoof, but instead some of the more farcical elements in the grotesque dealings of a major western power with a flyblown desert dictatorship in North Africa whose leader was recently described by David Cameron as ‘a monster’.
We all knew that Blair had signed up to a sordid Faustian pact with Gaddafi, but to see the letters and embassy documents which have emerged in Tripoli, as well the information obtained from the office of his former Minister for Security Musa Kusa – who turned sides and fled here this spring – is to realise the true, appalling extent of the damage that has been done to Britain.
The manner in which the machinery of government and the security and intelligence forces were co-opted into highly dubious practices on Gaddafi’s behalf is staggering.
Who could have possibly believed that MI6 illegally provided the Libyan secret police with tailor-made questions to be asked of its Islamist detainees, in the sure knowledge that Gaddafi’s thugs habitually used torture?
How can we reconcile the fact that MI6 information and advice was used by Gaddafi to undermine the fundamentalist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, whose leader Abdel Hakim Belhadj was held and tortured for six years in Libyan jails, with the fact that we now proclaim him a rebel hero who has just been appointed chief of security in newly liberated Tripoli?
Perhaps the most appalling indictment of the last government’s dealings with Gaddafi comes in the form of documents leaked from the office of the dictator’s former henchman Musa Kusa – a man who used torture without compunction and was known in Libya as The Fingernail-Puller-in Chief.
These appear to show that MI6 actually helped capture Belhadj and deliver him into Gaddafi’s hands – an episode hardly likely to lead to a cordial relations with the new regime
We have heard much in recent weeks of the antics of Britain’s Special Forces heroes, as they have brilliantly directed Nato airstrikes on Gaddafi’s forces. But the documents now unearthed in Tripoli reveal that the very same SAS was involved in training the feared Khamis Brigade, commanded by one of Gaddafi’s sons and thought to have been behind some of the worst atrocities in the conflict. Ninety of these killers were even brought to Britain for instruction, before returning home to Libya with Blair’s stamp of approval. Whether that quality assurance covered the Khamis Brigade’s inclination to line rebels against a wall and shoot them is a moot point.
Of course one cannot be naive. In global politics, Western powers such as Britain have to deal with monsters and Mad Dogs – as Ronald Reagan memorably called Gaddafi.
But what is so grotesque is quite how close to him Labour became, and how unscrupulously fawning it was in carrying out his wishes.
Everything about the Labour government’s relations with Libya seems sordid, whether under Blair or Gordon Brown. And how hypocritical these two men seem given the moralising posturing they indulged in on the international scene. Both were always ready to lecture any erring Third World government, not to speak of the Chinese and Russians, on human rights while at the same time helping Gaddafi with his murderous activities.
It was back in 2004 that Blair made his deal with Gaddafi, shaking hands with the dictator amidst the kitsch surroundings of his now burnt-out palace in Tripoli.
They made an odd couple, the right-on London lawyer whose wife was a noted human rights advocate, and the rancid old tyrant.
But Blair saw political capital in embracing the monster. The ostensible reason was that Gaddafi would abandon his WMD programme, although there is no evidence that he did so. The real reason was that Shell and BP would gain extensive drilling rights in an oil and gas-rich country much nearer to Europe than the Gulf. For his part Gaddafi was fed up with being an international pariah and saw the advantage of Western investment in industry, oil and tourism.
But the deal Blair made was shameless. He was to let bygones be bygones. Gaddafi’s past support for the IRA? Think nothing of it. The gunning down of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in 1984? Let’s forget it.
Lockerbie? Now this is where things began to unravel – for Blair and Brown ignored the potential anger of both American and Lockerbie families by releasing the bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi after Gaddafi threatened ‘holy war’ if the mass killer died in his Scottish prison.
U.S. outrage over the deaths of 270 people – most of them American citizens – was construed merely as a ‘presentational risk’, the papers now show. How typical that a party which was so obsessed with image and PR should construe such a crime in such amoral terms.
Officials also noted in the papers that Megrahi’s release would lead to suspicions that ‘the UK is prepared to do anything to maintain its commercial and other ties with Libya’.
Quite how far Labour’s leaders were prepared to go to keep those oil and gas contracts is now depressingly apparent.
Instead of congratulating himself on bringing down Gaddafi, David Cameron should be initiating a public inquiry into this episode of moral squalor, while ensuring that nothing like it occurs in our relations with the new Libya – or any foreign power – ever again.
Tony Blair's six secret visits to Col Gaddafi
Tony Blair’s close relationship to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has come under fresh scrutiny after it emerged he had six private meetings with the dictator in the three years after he left Downing Street.
By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter9:32PM BST 24 Sep 2011
Five of those meetings took place in a 14-month period before the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber.
Mr Blair is coming under increasing pressure to make public details of all his meetings and discussions with Gaddafi. It follows the disclosure in The Sunday Telegraph last week that on at least two occasions Mr Blair flew to Tripoli on a private jet paid for by the Libyan regime.
Among the new meetings uncovered by this newspaper is a visit to Gaddafi in January 2009, when JP Morgan, the US investment bank which pays Mr Blair Ł2 million a year as a senior adviser, was trying to negotiate a deal between the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) and a company run by the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a friend of Lord Mandelson. The multi-billion dollar deal, which later fell through, would have seen the LIA provide a loan to Rusal, the world’s largest aluminium producer.
JP Morgan’s involvement in the deal is revealed in an email sent to the LIA by the bank’s vice-chairman, Lord Renwick, in December 2008, in which he sought to “finalise the terms of the mandate concerning Rusal before Mr Blair’s visit to Tripoli”.
JP Morgan said Mr Blair had no knowledge of the Rusal proposal. A spokesman added: “JP Morgan declined to participate on such a transaction and thus Mr Blair was never involved, and it was never discussed with him.”
A spokesman for Mr Blair said: “Neither Tony Blair nor any of his staff raised any issue to do with a Russian aluminium company.” He added that the “bulk of the conversations” with Gaddafi had been about Africa and how Libya could develop infrastructure. While Gaddafi raised the issue of Megrahi’s release, Mr Blair always repeated that “it was a matter for the Scottish government”, the spokesman added.
Global Witness, an anti-corruption campaign group which obtained the Rusal email, said Mr Blair’s links to the LIA raised potential conflicts of interest between his roles as a Middle East peace envoy, fund-raiser in Africa and business adviser. Robert Palmer, a spokesman, said: “It’s hard to see how being Middle East peace envoy squares with doing business with a tyrant.”
Mr Blair's spokesman said: "Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he has not and has never had any commercial, business or advisory relationship with any Libyan company or entity."
This newspaper can also disclose that the Foreign Office granted a visa for Gaddafi’s daughter Hana to come to Britain last year, even though she was supposedly killed in a US bombing raid in 1986. Evidence has also emerged of the full extent of Britain’s deals with Khamis Gaddafi, the tyrant’s feared son, whose Khamis brigade has been accused of committing atrocities.
Tony Blair’s close relationship to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has come under fresh scrutiny after it emerged he had six private meetings with the dictator in the three years after he left Downing Street.
By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter9:32PM BST 24 Sep 2011
Five of those meetings took place in a 14-month period before the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber.
Mr Blair is coming under increasing pressure to make public details of all his meetings and discussions with Gaddafi. It follows the disclosure in The Sunday Telegraph last week that on at least two occasions Mr Blair flew to Tripoli on a private jet paid for by the Libyan regime.
Among the new meetings uncovered by this newspaper is a visit to Gaddafi in January 2009, when JP Morgan, the US investment bank which pays Mr Blair Ł2 million a year as a senior adviser, was trying to negotiate a deal between the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) and a company run by the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a friend of Lord Mandelson. The multi-billion dollar deal, which later fell through, would have seen the LIA provide a loan to Rusal, the world’s largest aluminium producer.
JP Morgan’s involvement in the deal is revealed in an email sent to the LIA by the bank’s vice-chairman, Lord Renwick, in December 2008, in which he sought to “finalise the terms of the mandate concerning Rusal before Mr Blair’s visit to Tripoli”.
JP Morgan said Mr Blair had no knowledge of the Rusal proposal. A spokesman added: “JP Morgan declined to participate on such a transaction and thus Mr Blair was never involved, and it was never discussed with him.”
A spokesman for Mr Blair said: “Neither Tony Blair nor any of his staff raised any issue to do with a Russian aluminium company.” He added that the “bulk of the conversations” with Gaddafi had been about Africa and how Libya could develop infrastructure. While Gaddafi raised the issue of Megrahi’s release, Mr Blair always repeated that “it was a matter for the Scottish government”, the spokesman added.
Global Witness, an anti-corruption campaign group which obtained the Rusal email, said Mr Blair’s links to the LIA raised potential conflicts of interest between his roles as a Middle East peace envoy, fund-raiser in Africa and business adviser. Robert Palmer, a spokesman, said: “It’s hard to see how being Middle East peace envoy squares with doing business with a tyrant.”
Mr Blair's spokesman said: "Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he has not and has never had any commercial, business or advisory relationship with any Libyan company or entity."
This newspaper can also disclose that the Foreign Office granted a visa for Gaddafi’s daughter Hana to come to Britain last year, even though she was supposedly killed in a US bombing raid in 1986. Evidence has also emerged of the full extent of Britain’s deals with Khamis Gaddafi, the tyrant’s feared son, whose Khamis brigade has been accused of committing atrocities.
Clearly the situation is far murkier than your "no conspiracy here" argument. What is the truth? We are only ever allowed to see just the thinnest slivers of what actually happens behind closed doors at the highest levels. From the crumbs that do fall off the table, it is clear that something stinks to high heaven.
No conspiracies here, move along. We will have to agree to disagree.
the equaliser
Take a look at Wesley Clark's chat about what has been planned.
War has been manufactured since the beginning of time for reasons of money and power dressed up has humanitarian intervention (Balkans/Libya) and national security (Afghanistan/Iraq).
Take a look at Wesley Clark's chat about what has been planned.
War has been manufactured since the beginning of time for reasons of money and power dressed up has humanitarian intervention (Balkans/Libya) and national security (Afghanistan/Iraq).
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breakfastburrito, your posts are articulate and well researched. Pretty much all of what you share with others is fact and already out there, no personal conspiracy theories are evident in any of your comments.
Instead of wasting time responding to people like Captain Gidday, keep posting your informative work instead. Some people either refuse to see the truth or simply enjoy arguing over fruitless points for no discernable reason.
As for Libya, if it wasn't so obvious it would be funny -- Central banks are a license to print money, control economies, load your own pockets (or those of a select few) !!! It works in Europe and the USA, why not Libya ??
The grey economic clouds are getting darker. I have said this before, look at what the worlds take was on global economies and finance when this thread commenced ??? Minimal talk on Greece defaulting or even the USA defaulting for that matter, yet here we are a few months later and the ball of string has well and truly unravelled with countries scrambling for solutions, riots, job losses, inflation and bankrupcy, and all the while some posters on here have been throwing around their comments about some of us being "conspiracy theorists, professors or other weido's" ? Unbelievable.
And anybody who thinks Australia is positioned to withstand the coming financial storm also needs to stop living in fantasy land. We are currently in a deeper state of debt than ever before. It all hangs on a knife edge because China is our lifeline and that gravy train has to run out of steam, and it will turn soon. China's inflation is becoming a problem, and remember, the USA WILL default on their loans which includes the 2.3 trillion they owe China, and Greece will also default on its loans (and no, Germany will not play 100% mother to Greece as Germany would risk ending up in the same sh#tpile), this in turn will contribute to the world wide economic disaster that is rapidly approaching. As soon as China and its thirst for resources slows we will be well and truly up sh#tcreek. It is a matter of when not if.
As for Swanny being the 'World's Best Treasurer' ? Ha, what a laugh. He has the best current economical standing, ironically by default. It is not his doing that we have weathered the storm better than other nations, it is by sheer luck that China has such a big resource appetite and we have the resources to feed it, simple as that. The current and previous Australian governments can take no credit for that, mother Australia and what lies beneath the ground get all the glory.
Instead of wasting time responding to people like Captain Gidday, keep posting your informative work instead. Some people either refuse to see the truth or simply enjoy arguing over fruitless points for no discernable reason.
As for Libya, if it wasn't so obvious it would be funny -- Central banks are a license to print money, control economies, load your own pockets (or those of a select few) !!! It works in Europe and the USA, why not Libya ??
The grey economic clouds are getting darker. I have said this before, look at what the worlds take was on global economies and finance when this thread commenced ??? Minimal talk on Greece defaulting or even the USA defaulting for that matter, yet here we are a few months later and the ball of string has well and truly unravelled with countries scrambling for solutions, riots, job losses, inflation and bankrupcy, and all the while some posters on here have been throwing around their comments about some of us being "conspiracy theorists, professors or other weido's" ? Unbelievable.
And anybody who thinks Australia is positioned to withstand the coming financial storm also needs to stop living in fantasy land. We are currently in a deeper state of debt than ever before. It all hangs on a knife edge because China is our lifeline and that gravy train has to run out of steam, and it will turn soon. China's inflation is becoming a problem, and remember, the USA WILL default on their loans which includes the 2.3 trillion they owe China, and Greece will also default on its loans (and no, Germany will not play 100% mother to Greece as Germany would risk ending up in the same sh#tpile), this in turn will contribute to the world wide economic disaster that is rapidly approaching. As soon as China and its thirst for resources slows we will be well and truly up sh#tcreek. It is a matter of when not if.
As for Swanny being the 'World's Best Treasurer' ? Ha, what a laugh. He has the best current economical standing, ironically by default. It is not his doing that we have weathered the storm better than other nations, it is by sheer luck that China has such a big resource appetite and we have the resources to feed it, simple as that. The current and previous Australian governments can take no credit for that, mother Australia and what lies beneath the ground get all the glory.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hedge-fund manager and short-seller Jim Chanos recently offered his latest bearish take on the coming chaos he sees ahead for China.
Chanos who's a bloody brilliant "forensic accountant" in my book (and nailed the Enron and Worldcom frauds) believes the country is headed for a huge real estate bust - one that will send the prices of Chinese banks, real estate developers and commodity producers much much lower. In fact if I quote Chanos on Bloomberg earlier this week -
"The property market is hitting the wall right now and things are decelerating. The CEO of Komatsu said last week that he is having trouble getting paid for his excavator sales in China. Developers are being squeezed. They're turning to the black market for lending, this shadow banking system that is growing by leaps and bounds like everything in China. Regulators over there are really trying to get their hands around the problem. In the meantime local governments have every incentive to just keep the game going. So they will continue with these projects and continue to borrow as the central government tries to rein it in."
In 2008, Americans learned the hard way what happens when a mania in rampant lending, real estate speculation, and shady banking practices hits a wall. When Chanos is proven right on China, and marks my words on this guys, it's going to get really fcuking ugly down there in Oz with that ratbag lunatic government currently in federal power.
I suggest you spare an hour to hear what Chanos is saying. Take it from me - this bugger knows what he's talking about when he speaks on China!
However I should mention that China isn't your biggest near-term worry. That remains with the slow moving financial bloody train wreck taking place in Europe. The latest news I have comes in the form of the IMF's estimate that European banks have more than $400 billion in credit risk. Again from Bloomberg -
The European debt crisis has generated as much as 300 billion euros ($410 billion) in credit risk for European banks, the International Monetary Fund said, calling for capital injections to reassure investors and support lending. Political squabbling in Europe over ways to fight contagion and delays in implementing agreed measures are raising concerns about the risk of defaults by governments, the IMF said. Banks in turn face "funding challenges" because of investor concern about their potential losses from government bonds they hold, with some relying heavily on the European Central Bank for liquidity, it said.
Whatever those stupid politicians do or say, you only need to know that Europe is in a no way out situation - the only possible outcome is more money printing to "paper over" the giant debts countries like Italy and Greece have piled up over the year.
Chanos who's a bloody brilliant "forensic accountant" in my book (and nailed the Enron and Worldcom frauds) believes the country is headed for a huge real estate bust - one that will send the prices of Chinese banks, real estate developers and commodity producers much much lower. In fact if I quote Chanos on Bloomberg earlier this week -
"The property market is hitting the wall right now and things are decelerating. The CEO of Komatsu said last week that he is having trouble getting paid for his excavator sales in China. Developers are being squeezed. They're turning to the black market for lending, this shadow banking system that is growing by leaps and bounds like everything in China. Regulators over there are really trying to get their hands around the problem. In the meantime local governments have every incentive to just keep the game going. So they will continue with these projects and continue to borrow as the central government tries to rein it in."
In 2008, Americans learned the hard way what happens when a mania in rampant lending, real estate speculation, and shady banking practices hits a wall. When Chanos is proven right on China, and marks my words on this guys, it's going to get really fcuking ugly down there in Oz with that ratbag lunatic government currently in federal power.
I suggest you spare an hour to hear what Chanos is saying. Take it from me - this bugger knows what he's talking about when he speaks on China!
However I should mention that China isn't your biggest near-term worry. That remains with the slow moving financial bloody train wreck taking place in Europe. The latest news I have comes in the form of the IMF's estimate that European banks have more than $400 billion in credit risk. Again from Bloomberg -
The European debt crisis has generated as much as 300 billion euros ($410 billion) in credit risk for European banks, the International Monetary Fund said, calling for capital injections to reassure investors and support lending. Political squabbling in Europe over ways to fight contagion and delays in implementing agreed measures are raising concerns about the risk of defaults by governments, the IMF said. Banks in turn face "funding challenges" because of investor concern about their potential losses from government bonds they hold, with some relying heavily on the European Central Bank for liquidity, it said.
Whatever those stupid politicians do or say, you only need to know that Europe is in a no way out situation - the only possible outcome is more money printing to "paper over" the giant debts countries like Italy and Greece have piled up over the year.
short flights long nights
I claim no expertise in any of this, but from what I understand that is currently happening in Europe...Goverments are setting up a scheme to guarantee money that they dont actually have...to lend to themselves..to pay back loans with money the dont have!!!! (if that makes sense)
This has to be a recepie for total meltdown
This has to be a recepie for total meltdown
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Satyajit Das on the Aviation Business and Finance. Absolutely fascinating interview and sounds awfully similar to QF. It is how finance/accounting gurus manipulate and ultimately destroy aviation businesses. They turned airlines into trading companies.
Anyone working in the airline business should hear this.
Interview starts at 2 minutes.
The Friday Podcast: How Money Got Weird : Planet Money : NPR
Anyone working in the airline business should hear this.
Interview starts at 2 minutes.
The Friday Podcast: How Money Got Weird : Planet Money : NPR
Sounds like he must have worked for Ansett / AWAS.
Now, if only airlines could really become like banks and bring money into existence, eh, Breakfastburrito? Oh yes, I forgot, they do. It's called Frequent Flyer Points.
Now, if only airlines could really become like banks and bring money into existence, eh, Breakfastburrito? Oh yes, I forgot, they do. It's called Frequent Flyer Points.
Last edited by Captain Gidday; 1st Oct 2011 at 11:02.
short flights long nights
Well I think it has started...and on CNBC we have the guy from "Kramers Money" or what ever he is called..that the last time told us all was good...he is now saying that maybe he sort of did say a bit did not really but I did say this was coming......
The next week will be interesting..hold on tight !!!!
The next week will be interesting..hold on tight !!!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gaia
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Says it all really
"The wealthy, not only by private fraud but also by common laws, do every day pluck and snatch away from the people some part of their daily living. Therefore, when I consider and weigh in my mind these commonwealths which nowadays do flourish, I perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men in procuring their own commodities under the name and authority of the commonwealth.
They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely without fear of losing that which they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor of the people for as little money and effort as possible."
Thomas More, Utopia
"The wealthy, not only by private fraud but also by common laws, do every day pluck and snatch away from the people some part of their daily living. Therefore, when I consider and weigh in my mind these commonwealths which nowadays do flourish, I perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men in procuring their own commodities under the name and authority of the commonwealth.
They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely without fear of losing that which they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor of the people for as little money and effort as possible."
Thomas More, Utopia
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know the system is sick when aprroximately 1% of a countries wealthy have 20% of the countries money in their bank accounts.
When Warren Buffet tells you that he pays less tax than his PA you know something is totally wrong.
The USA Federal Reserve is a structured milk cow for a handful of trillionaire families. When will the world's populous unite and tear this corrupt system apart? It has to be time to tear down the walls protecting a virtual mafia of banking families acting as puppeteers who are holding the population to financial ransome. Give these bast#rds their just deserts. As for the governments who are allowing this rot to exist, who are bending over and allowing themselves and their countries to cop it sweetly because they don't have the balls to say 'enough is enough' well they are equally accountable.
When Warren Buffet tells you that he pays less tax than his PA you know something is totally wrong.
The USA Federal Reserve is a structured milk cow for a handful of trillionaire families. When will the world's populous unite and tear this corrupt system apart? It has to be time to tear down the walls protecting a virtual mafia of banking families acting as puppeteers who are holding the population to financial ransome. Give these bast#rds their just deserts. As for the governments who are allowing this rot to exist, who are bending over and allowing themselves and their countries to cop it sweetly because they don't have the balls to say 'enough is enough' well they are equally accountable.