Good evening, Mr. Geithner, sir… is that a bailout under your arm? Is it yours, sir? Because, you see, we’ve had reports… ah, I see sir… it was a gift… well in that case, would you mind coming with us to the station, sir? It’s just routine…
Timmy Geithner’s in serious danger of getting booted out of favour with the Obama regime – and worse – as the stink surrounding the AIG bailout does its imitation of a spot that simply will not go away. It sounds as of the law are finally starting to get pro-actively interested in the precise legalities – or absence of same – when AIG was bailed out and passed the monies on to favoured clients. What no-one is bringing up at the moment is that Barclays were one of those clients. Barclays have made a great deal out of their not having had to be bailed out by the British taxpayer but have kept very quiet about their either beiongbailed out be the American taxpayer or being the beneficiary of outright fraud. This fruad might well be being dragged out from the shadows (banking shadows) into the generally-perceived limelight, where it will be widely understood. If Barclays are found to be in receipt of stolen, as I’ve always thought them to be, what will the likely consequences be for them as a company and the British banking system as a whole? One could argue that without the American bailout Barclays might have gone in the general confusion of the crunch. If they have to return the bailout billions, plus pay some kind of genuinely punitive fine on top, how would they survive? Who would bail them out? Who’s left to turn to? Gordon Brown can’t realistically pull another stunt along the LLoydsTSB/HBOS lines, who would fill the LLoydsTSB role? There are those who still try to suggest that what goes on over the Atlantic has no bearing on us here but the indications are that repercussions there will have resounding effects here.
Anyhoo, read about the latest goings on in this article from Ellen Brown.
Who knows? At this rate maybe the new Barclays uniform will be orange jumpsuits… 🙂
Competition for the banks is not a new idea. Here it is illustrated by excerpts from It’s a Wonderful Life together with the suggestion that we too need an alternative to going crawling to Mr Potter.
The difference between America, well, some places in America like for instances North Dakota, and Britain is that they have community banks that locals can use as an alternative to the too-big-to-fail type of institution that gamble with the money and rely on taxpayer bailouts to keep them out of trouble when they get into it and use taxpayers’ money to give themselves huge bonuses either way. Here in the UK, we simply don’t have anything similar. We may have credit unions and so forth but they can only lend what they have (full reserve banking) they don’t have what the high street banks have which is a license to create money (fractional reserve banking). I’ve said for years that the only thing that will really scare the banking fraternity is genuine compeition, a real alternative, and so far such an idea isn’t even being discussed here in the UK. If the government exercised its authority against the banks then that would terrify the banksters but so long as the banks can offer more reward to politicians than the electorate can then that isn’t going to happen. Whatever the way forward might be, politics isn’t it.
Anyway, I’m glad to see that Mr Bailey and presumably Harvey the rabbit had these ideas before me, before I was even born in fact. Perhaps we should remind ourselves we’ve grown up in an era where we regard going to a private bank to get into debt whenever we need money for something beneficial to our community as normal only because we’ve been conditioned into it. Earlier generations hadn’t been schooled to think the way we do and still regarded it as clearly artificial at best, outrageous at worst. So should we.
Recent research indicates that artifacts found underwater off Japan and India are from 7500 BC. The environments they were found in, deep underwater and obviously man-made, indicate flourishing civilisations existed on land-masses now underwater around 12000 BC. When I say flourishing civilisation, I hasten to point out there’s no evidence these guys polluted the skies with air travel or the seas with shipping the way we do. No suggestion of man-made pollution back then. They got swallowed up by the advancing waters just the same however. This suggests to me warming and cooling is a natural and ongoing consequence of the world turning, commonplace in the scheme of things, rather than directly created by the scheming hands of man.
It gets turned into something else by the politicians as an excuse to exercise further authority over the rest of us. Plus of course it serves as a distraction from their endless economic incompetence.
Where is it governments borrow money from? Nowhere at all. Instead, they ask the banks to create money, under license from themselves (the govt) which the banks will agree to as long as the banks are given in return an amount equal to the same amount they create, plus a whole lot more on top too. Governments, elected to serve our interests I’ll remind you, happily agree to this, rendering the electorate and their descendants liable for fulfilling these impossible obligations for centuries. Then those same governments retire and mysteriously surface in comfy retirement as consultants to – amazing, this – banks!
I think those who complain about immigration miss the point. It’s the money problem and the way banks and politicians between them stitch the rest of us up rotten that needs addressing. Many of these immigrants are economic migrants anyway. So will we be soon, I imagine, on our way to the boom economies of China and India with our begging bowls and our lucky heather.
Among Mandy’s many amusing statements at the Labour Party conference was that the cash for scrappage scheme would continue with money being provided for another 100,000 cars and vans. Cue applause. Excuse me? Did any of those attending have any grasp of the economic consequences of this policy? I doubt it… all it does is bring forward purchases from the future. People who buy now using government money will not be buying in the future using their own. Subsidised sales now mean there won’t be any then. This effectively bankrupts the future to bankroll the present – how is economic growth supposed to arise from this? Keeping the car industry alive now by robbing it of any future serves one purpose, not economic but political. When the future rolls inexorably around and lack of cash means stimulus has to stop, Labour is well aware that chances are it’ll be after the election and they won’t be in power by then anyway. It’ll be someone else’s problem. This is an appalling and cynical management of our finances which if better understood would make their losing at the next election a certainty. Instead they can rely on there being a general lack of understanding as it’s they who determine what level of economic education we receive. No wonder Balls fears homeschooling so much, any independently and properly educated kid is going to see straight through political chicanery like this.
Peter Mandelson is now being quoted at 4 to 1 to be the next Labour leader, meaning if they win the next election he might be the new Prime Minister! You never know, he might make a good fist of it!
Why is Brown being greeted with smiles, applause etc. at the Labour Party conference? This is the man who was UK Chancellor during the run-up to the greatest near-breakdown that world finance has ever had, and was Prime Minister when everything he was in charge of almost collapsed! The UK economy, his brief, was at one point just a few hours away from going to the great till in the sky yet the bloke in charge while this was all happening is warmly greeted and congratulated. Why aren’t they putting a teacloth over his head and hiding him in a corner somewhere?
More to the point, how can we ever trust this lot?
This from Tacitus, Roman historian, on the Britons after being conquered,”All this in their ignorance, they called civilization, when it was but a part of their servitude.”
The early Britons thought they had their own civilisation but really it was just a scam run by the Romans. The Romans had the monopoly on the money supply. If you wanted to trade, you had to use money, which you could only get from the Romans. Every time Britons traded, the Romans got their cut. The Britons were greatly encouraged to consider improving their circumstances by trading (mostly up) as the hallmark of a civilised nation. Get a whole people, a nation, running around trading and giving you a cut each time, self-motivated as they think they’re being civilised… what you’ve got is a machine that works day and night to make money for you.
We today similarly think we have our own civilisation, but really it’s just a scam run by the banks. The banks have the monopoly on the money supply. Every time we trade, bigger car, bigger house, more exotic holiday, or even just basics like food, heat, light… the banks take their cut as we have to “borrow” from the banks to get the money into circulation to use for all this. At interest. All our efforts really serve to do is enrich the banks.
The Roman scam grew bloated and was destroyed by the irresponsibility of the people at the top. The complete withdrawal of the money supply, on which the Britons and everyone else conquered by the Romans had come to depend, precipitated what we refer to as the Dark Ages. What we live in now grows bloated and is being destroyed by the irresponsibility of the people at the top. The money supply diminishes as the banks refuse to “lend”. History repeats itself around us.
I suspect a long night may be drawing in…