“Global Elite” Tighten The Screw

This article was first posted on 27th March 2009.

Since the start of the economic crisis in 2007 it has sometimes been puzzling to commentators such as myself as to why some huge banking corporations have allowed themselves to get into a situation that has led to them becoming insolvent.

Huge, international banks like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, RBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, Lloyds and Lehman Bros, to name just a few, have either gone completely or are now dependent for their continued existence on injections of bail-out cash from the already bankrupt US and UK governments. That's an anomaly if ever there was one, but let's continue on this track for the moment.

These rotten, corrupt institutions that have traded in debt and human misery for so long are the vital money-power arm of the "global elite", the existence of which is always denied by politicians and journalists but has been frankly admitted by David Rothkopf in his book, "Superclass" (available from Amazon). I cannot recommend strongly enough that you buy and read this book. It will forever lift you away from the make-believe world that the media would have you believe in and let you in on the real world of power politics.

Even though it is written from the smug, self-satisfied viewpoint of an "insider" who thinks the "global elite" have a right to enrich themselves and amass absolute political power over the whole world, nevertheless this is a book that reveals some of the shady, evil characters and organisations that are working tirelessly to enslave the rest of us into a worldwide gulag from which there can be no escape other than death. Unless, of course, you happen to be very rich, and even then you'll have to obey the rules or face the consequences. It should be compulsory reading for anyone intending to go on to further or higher education.

But back to the main point. The puzzling thing about the credit crunch has always been this - why would the super-rich global elite put their financial institutions on the line and let some of them go broke? They must have been aware of the "sub-prime mortgage" scam early on. In fact they probably started the whole process in the first place. So why did they let themselves lose some of their financial vehicles altogether, and put many of the remaining ones at the mercy of various cobbled together "bail out" plans?

The truth about this aspect is now beginning to surface. But before I come to it, let me explain what I believe has been happening behind the scenes. The global elite decided to take a major step towards consolidating their hold on the economies of all countries. They also at the same time wanted to rid themselves of what they deemed was too much competition in the financial markets, especially in the US, where there have historically been hundreds of small, independently owned banks.

Now it's true that all these small, independent banks in the US are controlled by the Federal Reserve System and regulated as to how much of their capital they can loan out to customers and at what rates, and so on. But nevertheless the elite decided that they didn't want them around any more.

The majority of these independently owned banks have, amazingly, been run prudently, even over the last few years when huge Wall Street banks have been falling over themselves to lend fictitious money to people and institutions that had no chance of ever repaying it, and buying expensive packages of toxic loans. These small banks, for the most part, carried on "business as usual", and refrained from copying their irresponsible larger counterparts.

You would think that these small banks would now be in a very strong position. They have proved their worth and their business acumen in managing to keep out of the train wreck that the large, international banks have caused. And indeed they should be in a strong position. But in this insane world in which the global elite have very nearly total power, these prudent banks are about to be obliterated. This is exactly what the global elite want, so let's see how they've managed to engineer it.

All the politicians and media people tell us that we just have to save the big banks and the financial system at all costs. No bail-out package is too expensive because the alternative to saving these financial institutions is unthinkable. That's what we're supposed to believe. So we've had one bail-out package after another (none of which will do the slighted good to the ordinary citizen or to productive industry) and the amounts involved have been just enough to keep most of the big banks in existence. Those that have gone, such as Lehman Bros, I believe were expendable to the money power. Besides, one or two banks had to be sacrificed just to show the public and governments that the situation was serious enough to justify all those billions being pumped into the system.

But there was not quite enough bail-out money to save some of the banks, and this was quite deliberate. The American insurance giant, AIG, was among the institutions that received billions of tax dollars, and much of this money went straight to the big banks that were in trouble and who had insured various deposits and financial deals that went bad. Now AIG isn't the only institution that insures deposits at banks. The other such body is the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The FDIC insures the deposits of millions of ordinary Americans at their banks. If a bank were to become insolvent the FDIC would pay out any losses to depositors. But many of the customers of the FDIC are Wall Street banks that have become insolvent through their own recklessness. The claims that the FDIC is now facing are so huge that it would itself have to close its doors, and if that happened, and millions of Americans lost all their savings, there would be a danger of widespread public outrage, hunger, famine and even blood on the
streets.

But the FDIC is not favoured when it comes to bail-out help from the taxpayer. What it has to do, therefore, in order to cover its liabilities, is to massively increase the premiums that all banks pay each year to be covered against the risk of failure. The big Wall Street banks will be able to cover this, thanks to their trillion-dollar hand-out from the US government's printing presses (via the Federal Reserve loan system, of course), but what about the smaller, well-run banks in middle America?

They simply won't be able to pay the surcharge demanded of them. Most, perhaps all, will have to close their doors and face being taken over by - guess who? Yes, the big Wall Street banks that behaved so recklessly over the several years leading up to the credit crunch.

This, when it happens, will be just another example of logic being turned on its head to suit the money power, the financial arm of the so-called "global elite". They will then have tighter control over the finances of millions more ordinary Americans. And we should all know by now what that will mean . . .

=================

Have you downloaded and read "Promise To Pay" yet? Written by Dr R. McNair Wilson in the early 1930s, at the time of the Great Depression of the twentieth century, it will show you in straightforward language how the banking systems of the western world are a racket, used by the money power / global elite to amass wealth and power for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Go to our home page now to download.

And then . . .

Spread the word.

Philip Gegan

 

 

Economic Globalisation, the Economy Downturn and the Real Truth

The following article was first posted on 16th March 2009.

"Globalisation" has been the in thing for establishment economists and dumb politicians for years. According to them it is largely responsible for our so-called prosperity over the last 50 years. They are in a state of shock that the recession has hit in spite of the massive globalisation that has taken place. But let's cut away the rubbish and have a look at how things really are.

Economic globalisation and the economy downturn are almost like two sides of the same coin. So how is it most people are unable to see it that way? How many people can actually say they know anything at all about "globalisation"? It exists in the public mind as only a hazy idea, even a good one, for, so it is thought, it is the reason why we can buy all those mouth-watering, must-have gadgets in their colourful packaging for such low prices.

Here in the UK, and I know in most other western counties as well, we have in our shops and showrooms cars, TVs, electronic gadgets and household goods that have been manufactured for the most part in the far east. Certainly nearly all the manufactured goods you can buy are made somewhere overseas. Why should this be?

Because these manufactured goods are cheap. They have undercut our own manufactured goods for so long that all the factories that used to make these goods have had to close down. The men and women formerly employed in these factories have either become part of the long-term unemployed, funded by the tax payer, or have had to become shelf stackers at a supermarket, or take up other, non-wealth-producing roles in order to survive.

And all because of "globalisation", which has made it possible for multi-national corporations to switch production from western countries, with their higher labour costs, to places like the far east, where the labour force works long hours and is prepared to accept wages that we in the west could never live on. Take China, for example. Their workers are happy to be paid the equivalent of $50 or so a week, often less, and the Chinese government is happy to have a healthy trade surplus and comparatively full employment.

But with these cheap consumer goods comes a fatal side-effect. Anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together knows that we really should be making these products ourselves. After all, we in the west for the most part produced the technology and the genius that led to the invention and development of these electronic marvels in the first place. So it's only right that our own country and our own people should benefit from the profits they earn. But under "globalisation" this doesn't happen.

Instead, the manufacturing rights of every invention, every new development, either belong to a multinational corporation, through its research and development programme, or are purchased from the original inventor. The goods are then produced in a far eastern country while we in the west are saddled with high unemployment and all the social problems that go with it.

Meanwhile, we carry on purchasing most of the goods we need from overseas. How long can we go on indulging in this lunacy before we as a nation run out of foreign exchange to pay for them?

This has actually already happened. Both Great Britain and the United States are effectively bankrupt, unable to repay their foreign loans if repayment were demanded. This is probably the main reason why China, for example, as the leading creditor country of both countries, will never demand repayment. If it did, both the UK and the USA would be forced to default.

This would lead to a massive devaluation of the pound and the dollar to render them worth only a fraction of their previous value. And this would be disastrous to China, whose foreign reserves consist mostly of these two currencies and whose economy therefore depends on the present charade continuing ad infinitum.

Already the recession has impacted this arrangement. Spiraling unemployment in the west has led to a collapse in demand for consumer goods, and this in turn has led to a sharp rise in unemployment in the far east including China.

Economic globalisation, long held dear by establishment economists and ignorant politicians, is proving to be a disaster for every country. It's the modern-day equivalent of "free trade", which caused so much suffering to the working classes of western countries throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It embraces the "free movement of labour" and the "free movement of capital" that are policies enshrined in the treaties of international bodies such as the corrupt, so-called "European Union".

What these fine-sounding slogans really mean is that huge, international manufacturing corporations responsible for producing everything from cars and computers to essential medical and technical equipment, and everything in between, are free to slash their labour costs by moving production to the far east ("free movement of capital") and if the poor, wretched working people of the west find they are subsequently out of work, why, they can move around the globe until they find a job ("free movement of labour"), provided they will accept the lowest wages being paid anywhere.

The collapse in manufacturing capacity that this process has brought about in western countries may have benefited the "Superclass" of David Rothkopf's book, who undoubtedly own and control most of the world's wealth, including its productive capacity. But it has been disastrous for individual nations, including the ordinary working folk. The cost is not just financial, but social as well, as unemployed youngsters with no future turn to drugs and crime,
encouraged to do this as they are by insanely liberal criminal laws.

Next time you hear some university professor or politician praising globalisation / free trade or warning us against "protectionism" you may want to challenge them along the lines set out in this blog post. Before you do, make sure you have downloaded "Promise To Pay", available free of charge from our home page at Ancient Banking Secret.

And then . . .

Spread the word.

Philip Gegan