Published on 28 Jul 2017
Published on 28 Jul 2017
by James Corbett
September 30, 2017
Yes, the blockchain is truly revolutionary.Yes, bitcoin is Tulipmania 2.0.
Yes, cryptocurrency is a nail in the coffin of the bankster parasites.
Yes, digital currency is a tool of the totalitarian tyrants.
No, these statements are not contradictory. But don’t worry if you think they are. You’re just a victim of the bitcoin psyop.
What’s the bitcoin psyop? Well, look at a headline like this:
If you immediately think “Aha! I knew it! The Fed is behind this bitcoin nonsense, after all!” then you might want to stop and contemplate this headline from two years ago:
Do you think there’s some kind of contradiction here? Or do you think that Bernanke has “flip-flopped” on the issue? Or do you suspect that Bernanke was always secretly behind bitcoin but couldn’t admit it until now?
If so, then you have fallen for an embarrassingly simple trick. That trick is to use the words “bitcoin” and “blockchain” and “cryptocurrency” and “digital currency” interchangeably, as if they are all the same thing. They are not.
Confused? Well, fear not! Our good friends at the Bank for International Settlements have written a handy-dandy article that explains everything to you in simple, everyday language. They’ve even illustrated that article with easy-to-understand infographics!
Just kidding. Their unwieldy article on “Central Bank Cryptocurrencies” is a predictably hot mess of monetary jargon and Venn diagrams that somehow make things look even more complicated than they sound, like this:
Now, to be fair, their proposed new “taxonomy of money” has real explanatory power, and the diagrams that result are genuinely insightful, but it hardly makes for light bedtime reading. So, let’s see if we can make it a little easier, shall we?
A blockchain is a decentralized, cryptographically secured ledger.
The geeks in the crowd will appreciate the fact that the blockchain is a stupendously elegant solution to some incredibly complicated problems in the obscure recesses of arcane subjects like distributed computing and payment processing. But for the non-geeks, perhaps this will suffice: Some of the oldest documents ever discovered have been ledgers of one sort or another. Medical records, legal and business contracts, accounting ledgers; as long as there has been civilization, there has been the need for secure and accurate record-keeping of transactions and events. And since the birth of civilization there has only been one way to keep those records: a system where a recognized central administrator stores, secures and updates that ledger.
Until now, that is. With the advent of the blockchain, an accurate ledger can now be maintained without a single, central point where that information is stored, maintained or updated. Registrars? Notaries? You might as well be talking about farriers and chimney sweeps.
But talking about the blockchain is like talking about the printing press. Yes, it’s revolutionary. Yes, it will change the course of history. But what, specifically, does it print? Well, whatever you want it to, of course. A papal bull or the Ninety-five Theses, the 9/11 Commission Report or The Road to 9/11, a GMO cookbook or _The Anarchist Cookbook, c_olorful pieces of toilet paper or Federal Reserve notes (but I repeat myself).
So what does the blockchain record? Well, whatever you want it to, of course. It can be used as a tool for creating smart contracts or registering land ownership or creating decentralized cryptocurrencies.
This is where bitcoin comes in.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency whose transactions are recorded in a public blockchain ledger.
There are three things to note about this description of bitcoin.
Firstly, bitcoin is just one application of the blockchain ledger technology. They are not the same thing. Bitcoin is not blockchain. Blockchain is not bitcoin. Bitcoin uses the blockchain innovation to run an electronic payment system.
Secondly, bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. That means it uses cryptographic functions to secure and verify transactions on the network and to control the issuance of new units. Bitcoin conforms to a certain protocol, and that protocol defines the rules by which the bitcoin network operates. You can tweak those rules and create similar-but-separate payment systems, each with its own qualities. These bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies (Namecoin, Litecoin, Dash, etc.) are called altcoins.
Thirdly, bitcoin uses a specific kind of blockchain ledger called a “public” or “permissionless” blockchain. This means anyone can join the network and contribute to the maintenance of the ledger (“mining,” in the bitcoin parlance). There is another kind of blockchain, called a “private” or “permissioned” blockchain, that requires nodes to be invited to join the network or otherwise given permission to participate in maintaining the ledger.
And as a further level of analysis, it should be noted that all cryptocurrencies are digital currencies, but not all digital currencies are cryptocurrencies. Oh, and then there’s virtual currencies, which are, technically speaking, another thing altogether.
OK, this is starting to get confusing, isn’t it? This is about the point where we’d need to bust out the Venn diagrams and start colouring the overlapping parts, right? Well, if you’ve followed all of this, good for you. If not, don’t sweat it. The point for today is simply to recognize that there are a lot of separate-but-related concepts here, and to talk about them as if they are all just one big monolithic thing is not just unhelpful but purposefully misleading.
So, let’s look at those Bernanke headlines again:
Are you at least beginning to get a handle on how those headlines are not contradictory? How it could be that a central banker could be interested in blockchain technology but dislike the bitcoin application of that technology?
If not, think of it this way: the same DVD player that can play Century of Enslavement can also play The Federal Reserve and You. The same printing press that can print Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy can also be used to print The Warren Commission. The same web browser that can take you to corbettreport.com can also take you to NYTimes.com (and no, I’m not hyperlinking that!).
So, yes, the blockchain can be used to create digital currencies that represent the very vision of a totalitarian tyrant’s wildest wet dream. Central banks could use private blockchains to administer national digital currencies that permanently record and track every transaction in the economy. That currency could be distributed through government-issued wallets that act as an individual ID and allow the government to track everything you ever purchase back to you personally. It could be used to create the perfect system of panoptic oversight, and the totalitarians could, as sole proprietors of the private blockchain, target anyone they saw as a threat for removal from the economy by simply revoking their wallet.
And, yes, the blockchain could be used to create a digital currency that represent the banksters’ worst nightmare. Free individuals could use a public blockchain to create a cryptocurrency not issued by or subject to any central authority. Or it could be used to raise untaxable cryptofunds for agoristic start-up ventures through unregistered ICOs. Or it could be used to transfer value or property instantaneously across the imaginary lines on the map that define the supposed boundaries of the would-be tyrants’ geographical monopolies without the permission of said tyrants.
Are you starting to get the picture?
A gun can be used by a jackbooted minion of the police state to murder you and your family, or it can be used by you to defend yourself and your family. It is a tool, just like the blockchain, and can be used for good or for ill.
Now let’s look once again at the statements that opened this article.
Is the blockchain revolutionary? Well, no decentralized, peer-to-peer ledger has ever existed before, so yes, it is that rarest of rare things: something new under the sun.
Is bitcoin Tulipmania 2.0? Yes, in the exact same sense that the dotcom bubble of the 90s was Tulipmania 2.0. Just as Pets.com and other ventures that earned (and lost) hundreds of millions of dollars in the blink of an eye were the result of a speculative frenzy, so too are the sudden run-ups and run-downs in bitcoin’s price the result of a speculative frenzy. But the busting of the dotcom bubble wasn’t the end of the worldwide web anymore than a future bursting of the bitcoin speculation bubble will be the end of cryptocurrency (or even bitcoin).
Is cryptocurrency a nail in the coffin of the banksters? Yes. Cryptocurrencies can now be (and already is being) used by millions around the world for instantaneous and virtually free international remittances, all without the aid of a bank account. Start ups have raised billions of dollars in capital through ICOs without a VC predator or investment bank underwriter in sight. More broadly, a whole host of banksters and their associated cronies in the third-party middleman parasitic class are already openly contemplating the fact that they have already been made obsolete by the blockchain technology which underlies the cryptocurrency boom. Is this the one and only silver bullet that will end banking all by itself? Don’t be ridiculous. But it’s one more arrow for the quiver.
Is digital currency a tool of the totalitarian tyrants? Well we’ve already seen how the BIS is musing about central bank-issued cryptocurrencies and we’ve contemplated how that nightmare scenario of control and surveillance might unfold. It hardly takes a Nostradamus to envision how the forces of centralization are going to push as hard as they can to put the cryptocurrency genie safely back in the bottle of central-bank issued fiat.
Are any of these statements contradictory? Nope. But the bitcoin psyop might have made you think they were. And now you know better.
So, here’s a test of your newfound, nuanced understanding of the intricacies of digital currencies. Can you explain how this headline:
And this headline:
Are perfectly compatible?
If so, then give yourself a pat on the back. You’ve just seen through the bitcoin psyop.
In the spirit of the holidays and hope for a more prosperous 2017 I thought Insight readers might appreciate a little holiday humor. So please don’t take this edition too seriously. But if you happen to stumble across a ‘paperbug’ or two over the holidays, perhaps you could share some of the points made here as it will help them to realize just how hopelessly misguided they are. Cheers!
NUMBER 10: THERE IS NOT ENOUGH GOLD (OR SILVER) IN THE WORLD TO SERVE AS MONEY
Let’s begin with the obvious. We know that central banks the world over have printed money at exponentially growing rates for years. There is now so much paper and electronic money floating around the world that gold (or silver) cannot possibly be expected to keep up. You can’t print gold, after all, you need to find it, dig it out of the ground, refine it, etc, a hugely expensive and time-consuming process which practically ensures a stable rather than exponentially growing supply of the stuff. Of course, we know that an exponentially growing supply of money is a good thing. How else can an economy hope to grow, especially one bearing an exponentially rising debt burden! We need all that new money to pay all that new interest, don’t we? And don’t forget, most things keep getting more expensive, like food and fuel. Don’t we need more money to pay for all that too? What about government entitlements that keep growing in size? If we didn’t have a constant flow of new money, how on earth would we pay for all of that? It is essential that we keep the printing presses rolling.
NUMBER 9: GOLD AND SILVER ARE OLD-FASHIONED, CUMBERSOME MONEY
Here’s another obvious one for you: Gold is HEAVY! Who wants to carry gold coins around? They might be nice and shiny, but to me, gold looks even prettier around a lady’s neck or wrist. The more you think about it, in an age of electronic, plastic, internet or blockchain money, the whole concept of coinage begins to seem a bit anachronistic. Who even uses small denomination coins anymore, except as household poker betting tokens? I suppose larger coins are still of some use, but let’s face it folks, even those are almost worthless anymore. Coinage is just so passé. Sure, coins used to have some value. When I was young and I watched Little House on the Prairie and The Waltons I was amazed that at the general stores or other retail establishments a penny actually bought a range of items and with a few nickels and dimes you could purchase much of what was on offer! But why bother with coins today? I use plastic or electronic money for almost everything. Sure, that money still references dollars, or euros, or sterling, or yen balances of a bank account. But hey, it would be just so barbaric to reference a gold or silver account instead, wouldn’t it? As if banks even hold enough cash on hand for large withdrawals anymore, much less gold or silver. Oh and an ounce of gold, at a whopping $1,150 is just way too expensive for most commerce. So not only is there NOT ENOUGH gold in the world as per Number 10 above; what gold there is, is TOO EXPENSIVE to serve as a useful money! Oh I suppose we could use fractions of ounces of gold instead of full ounces, but most people struggle with fractions, including me. Silver might be more useful, but at some $16/oz, it wouldn’t really work for making change now, would it?
NUMBER 8: GOLD RESTRAINS GROWTH
OK, this reason is a little bit wonkish, but if you’ll bear with me I’ll explain why gold-backed money would put the brakes on the healthy growth the world has been experiencing all through this prosperous modern period of an exponentially rising money supply and might even send us back to the poor house. We already touched on this with Number 10 but let’s go off on a tangent here. You see, back when gold was money, people were poorer. Way poorer. And economic growth was often much weaker. I mean, before the industrial revolution, we didn’t even have machines to do basic work like farming, so people had to have loads of children just to get basic work done, resulting in a cycle of poverty. Sure, a handful of landed aristocrats held most of the wealth, and they did just fine, but really, do we want to go back to that sort of wealth disparity?
Oh and as for the industrial revolution, it was such a fluke. Sure it led to the most rapid economic growth in history in most of Europe, North America and Japan, but it would probably have been way more rapid had money growth been exponential instead of stable at the time. That said, inflation didn’t actually work out so well in France, where exponential money growth destroyed much of the economy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But hey, how else to finance that Revolution of theirs? The American Revolution was also hugely inflationary, you know, those worthless continentals and all. But wasn’t it a huge overreaction for the US federal government to choose silver coinage as the inaugural US federal money?
For that matter, had Napoleon just kept on inflating, rather than paying his soldiers in silver coin to earn their confidence and loyalty, he might have won the wars against those Brits and others who refused to inflate their currencies. And why did the Americans experiment with gold- and silver-backed money for so long? Imagine how much faster they would have industrialized had they just kept on printing continentals instead! Ah well, hindsight is 20:20. Perhaps technology wouldn’t exactly regress if we went back to gold- or silver-backed money but you never know. Some people talk like that. And certainly most of the innovations of modern times would never have taken place had we been on gold-backed money. Think about all those green technologies that promise to solve our energy problems someday. Things were just fine before we started consuming all the carbon stuff and now we’ve got to get back on track. Only exponentially growing money can fund these programs that aren’t yet profitable. Imagine what would happen if money were gold? Or silver? We would be dependent on energy and other technologies that actually made fundamental economic sense. No, that would be a huge mistake.
NUMBER 7: THE GOLD STANDARD CAUSED THE GREAT DEPRESSION
This is related to the above but hugely important in its own right so I’m treating it as a separate critique of gold- or silver-backed money. Milton Friedman is famous in part for blaming the Federal Reserve for causing the Great Depression. This runs contrary to what many believe, however, that the gold standard itself caused the Depression. Of course, they are right. Let me show you why by way of a little historical background. We all know that WWI was hugely inflationary as Britain, Germany and other belligerents went off the gold standard in order to finance the war by printing money. Following years of printing, in Europe prices for just about everything skyrocketed.
It didn’t help, of course, that much industrial capacity was destroyed by the war, limiting supply. In Russia, most of the capital stock was seized by the government as part of their anti-capitalist revolution. So there was loads more money chasing far fewer goods in Europe, which is one way Milton Friedman and other so-called ‘monetarists’ like to explain inflation. In some places like Weimar Germany, interwar Austria and Hungary, there was outright hyperinflation and currency collapse in the 1920s.
Impoverished, these countries ended up with highly competitive labor costs, similar to various poor emerging markets today. Britain, however, had gone back on the gold standard in 1925 and thus had the strongest currency in Europe. This made British labor highly uncompetitive, resulting in persistently high unemployment and massive strikes, some turning violent. In 1927, the Bank of England kindly requested that the US Federal Reserve stimulate demand for UK exports by expanding the US money supply. The Fed obliged. This contributed to a huge stock market bubble in the US, but unfortunately it crashed under its own weight in 1929. Meanwhile, Britain’s economy remained mired in a depression unknown to most Americans today. Finally, in 1931, Britain decided to devalue its currency. The US was already slipping into depression at the time and suddenly found it had by far the least competitive wages in the world. It was now in a situation comparable to Britain in 1927, yet without another country to which it could turn for help.
The Federal Reserve had already accumulated a huge amount of gold from Britain but, as Milton Friedman observed, didn’t do as it was supposed to do and expand the domestic money supply in line with the swelling gold reserves. Why? No one knows. Perhaps the Fed was spooked by the stock market boom and bust that it had created in 1927-29 and didn’t want to risk a repeat. But whereas the 1927 monetary expansion was not linked to an inflow of gold reserves, in 1930-31 the Fed could have hugely expanded the money supply in line with growing gold reserves, thereby preventing many bank failures. To make matters worse, President Hoover was advised by some prominent, proto-Keynesian economists of the day that a drop in aggregate demand had to be avoided at all costs and that the best way to accomplish this was to support wages, notwithstanding rising unemployment. As a result, US wages were by far the highest in the world by 1931, labor was uncompetitive, and unemployment was thus far higher than it would otherwise have been, had Hoover left things alone.
So, it is blindingly obvious that the gold standard was the cause of the Great Depression. Not WWI. Not the massive inflation to pay for WWI. Not the widespread destruction of European industry. Not the Russian Revolution and industrial collapse. Not the 1920s hyperinflations and revolutions in central Europe. Not the Fed’s stock market bubble of 1927- 29. Not the Fed’s failure to allow the money supply to expand naturally with gold reserves in 1930-31. Not the artificial wage supports introduced by President Hoover and continued by FDR. No, the gold standard caused the Great Depression. Really. It did.
NUMBER 6: RULES CAN BE BROKEN
Returning to the obvious, this reason is so simple a child can understand it. Rules are nice on paper but we all know they can be broken. Just because a country is on a gold standard doesn’t mean it can’t just devalue and leave. Britain and Germany did so in 1914 and inflated like crazy to pay for WWI as explained above. The US devalued the dollar some 60% versus gold in 1934 and left the gold standard entirely in 1971. Let’s face it, if rules can be broken, what’s the point having them in the first place? The claim that gold or silver money is stable and prevents runaway inflation is just hogwash. Whenever governments choose, they can ditch gold money, devalue and create as much inflation as they desire. They can even hyperinflate if they like. What’s to stop them? They set the rules. Gold advocates are just so naïve!
NUMBER 5: GOLD (OR SILVER) MONEY FAVORS THE US VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD
Now for those of us residing outside the USofA, we’re sometimes concerned that the US has the largest gold reserves in the world. If the world went back on a gold standard, then the US would be even more powerful than it already is. It would throw its weight around even more, use that gold to pay for an even larger military and open up more bases abroad, including where they aren’t even wanted, like in Bulgaria.
The US might even start more wars, as if it hasn’t started enough already, finananced as they are with the Fed’s printing press. Now history does suggest that war and inflation go hand in hand. Certainly this was the case in the 20th century. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars were hugely inflationary in continental Europe. The 30years’ war was hugely inflationary too, ruining the previously prosperous Habsburg economies. Then there was the American Revolution, financed with those paper continentals. But today things are different. Really, they are. If the world again used gold as money there would be more wars, notwithstanding that these would be far more difficult to finance. On another note, the US economy imports far more than it exports. Wonks call this a ‘trade-deficit’. Really wonkish types have a more expanded term called a ‘current-account deficit’. If the world went back to gold money then the US would need to use its gold reserves to pay for net imports, instead of just printing more dollars. And at current gold prices, the US would not even be able to cover one year of its current-account deficit! Imagine, the US would be unable to keep importing more than it exported! It would be forced to become a more competitive economy and it would need to save and produce more and consume less! The horror!
We all know that the US consumer is the only thing keeping the global economy afloat. To whom would China or others export if not to the US consumer? What a ridiculous idea! Well, it’s just not going to happen. Keynesians like Paul Krugman know that there is just no other way to grow economies than with exponential money growth to finance excessive consumption. Saving is the quick road to the poor house. Borrowing your way to prosperity has worked so well in the past, why would anyone possibly want to stop now? After all, savings is the four-letter word of Keynesian economics. Let’s just not go there.
NUMBER 4: GOLD FAVORS GOLD MINING COUNTRIES OVER OTHERS
Here’s another simple one: If you go back to gold- or silver money, you are providing a huge subsidy for those countries producing the money. Why give them the printing press, when we can keep it for ourselves? Remember, the power to print exponentially rising amounts of fiat currency is the key to economic prosperity. We don’t want countries rich in natural resources to benefit at our expense now, do we? Sure, many countries rich in gold are in Africa or other underdeveloped regions. They’re poor. They’re backward. Some are near-dictatorships. Many dictators depend on us and our foreign aid, financed as it is with our printing presses. Why, if we could no longer print that foreign aid into existence, these poor countries would have to help themselves instead! No, they’re just too backward for that.
Imagine that the value of gold and silver mines in Africa and other poor parts of the world soared as these metals were re-monetized. Why it would be like what happened to the Persian Gulf countries when oil became a highly valuable commodity back in the 1970s. They became rich! Today those economies are among the wealthiest in the world. They mostly export far more than they import and they have built up huge sovereign wealth funds for the future. But Africa being as screwed up as it is, they can’t be expected to spend their wealth responsibly. They need the US, UK and other countries to show them how to do it. Like what gas-guzzlers to buy. Or how many flat-screen TVs per McMansion to have. Or how to administer a post office, or a national railway system, or quality state education. No, rebalancing global wealth toward Africa and other poor regions is bad enough. Giving them control over their own wealth is just plain irresponsible. We shouldn’t do it and so we shouldn’t return to gold money. (Please don’t think I’m racist BTW. Really. I’m sure the same is true of all those politicians and bureaucrats who believe that, without foreign aid, many African countries would end up like Argentina or Venezuela. Or Greece even.)
NUMBER 3: GOLD FAVORS THE RICH
Notwithstanding the observation above, that gold or silver money would bestow greater wealth on countries rich in those particular natural resources, the fact is, today most gold and silver privately held is in the hands of the wealthy. They’re already rich, why should we make them even more so? Wealth inequality is a serious problem, why make it worse? We all know that exponential fiat money growth in recent decades has helped to prevent even greater wealth disparity. Sure, in the US, the wealth of the top 1% has risen exponentially relative to the middle-class since the 1970s, when the US went off the gold standard and the age of exponential money growth began, but that is mere coincidence. It is true that real wages grew quickly under the gold standard, which created the largest middle-class in history, but even then there were those nasty Robber Barons who became richer than they deserved. Some of them were enlightened enough to realize this, like Andrew Carnegie, who gave away most of his fortune. Economic progress is OK as long as people don’t get too rich from it. So let’s keep creating wealth by printing money but make certain that those that get too rich give it away. Or else.
We shouldn’t be too concerned that the banks and owners of capital are the primary beneficiaries of money expansion, as they have first access to the new money. After all, we want our undercapitalised banks to start lending again so we can continue on our borrowing and consumption binge. How else are the banks going to lend us money if we don’t create it in the first place? Sure we have to pay them interest on it, but rates are low so we shouldn’t care. Yes, inflation is historically associated with wealth disparity and sound money is associated with a growing middle class. But that was before we came up with the modern welfare state that automatically transfers money from the wealthy to the poor, that is, unless the wealthy find ways around the tax code by creating trusts and endowments, purchasing tax-exempt securities or acquiring assets that tend to rise in price with inflation. But they don’t really want to avoid tax, do they? Warren Buffett, for one, says he wants to pay more tax. Of course he is allowed to do that, as the IRS has a special facility for those who wish to pay more than their mandated share. Sometimes I wonder why he doesn’t. He could dump his tax-exempt munis and hold taxable bonds, for example. Or he could pay out dividends, taxed as ordinary income, rather than purchasing outstanding shares through buy-backs. Or he could live in a state with high taxes, rather than in low-tax Nebraska.
Given the complexity of the tax codes in most developed countries, I suspect there are thousands of ways that Warren or other rich people could pay more tax if they wished. Maybe actions speak louder than words. Of course middle-class families don’t have access to fancy tax planning, as it tends to be rather expensive. Really fancy tax planning requires writing new items into the tax code, something that tax lobbyists do full-time on behalf of the wealthy. No, middle-class folks just have to pay up to compensate for all those loopholes that most never hear about until the government decides that they are no longer politically expedient. In practice, this means that the welfare state is primarily a redistribution from the middle-class to the poor. But no, I don’t think this is the reason for the shrinking middle class. I think it is because, notwithstanding clearly heroic attempts, we are still not printing enough money.
NUMBER 2: PHDS KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR US
Back to the obvious, we all know that someone with a PhD is smarter than we are. They’ve got the degree to prove it. Some PhDs even have degrees in economics, which is unbelievably complicated. How else could one understand how exponential money growth creates wealth? How you can borrow your way to prosperity and save your way into the poor house? How importing more than you export is sustainable? How coercive central planning is superior to voluntary, free-market exchange? Let’s face it, we may all be equal, but PhDs are more equal than others. If we didn’t have them telling us what the price of money should be—or the rate of interest if you prefer—we would just lurch from one economic calamity to the next. The Great Depression would seem a cake walk by comparison, as would our current economic malaise, which they say isn’t a depression, even if it feels like it to most.
If you need more proof, just look at those fancy buildings that central bankers work in. They’re impressive. So are the headquarters of the big private banks. These guys are obviously successful and important, so there is no good reason why they shouldn’t be telling us what to do. They even have a name for what they tell us to do: Free-Market Capitalism. I’m not entirely sure what the ‘Free’ part of that means, as most things aren’t free, except of course those provided by the government. The problem with gold or silver money, you see, is that the PhDs would no longer have the ability to manipulate our money for our benefit. And since they know precisely what the supply of money should be, we shouldn’t be concerned that they might create too much of it, or too little for that matter. The exponential amounts they’ve been creating since 2007 are ‘just right’, as Goldilocks might say. Also, PhDs have all sorts of fancy statistics that only they understand. This is because they create them in the first place. PhDs are smart enough to do that, you see. So when they tell you that consumer price inflation is 2.43%, they don’t mean 2.42%. Or 2.44%. No, they mean 2.43%. This precision is important as it determines how many billions of new money they need to give to the banks to ensure price stability and full employment. If they’re having trouble doing that, however, it’s not their fault. They’re PhDs.
Speaking of ‘price stability’, since when is 2.43% growth in prices ‘stability’? Wouldn’t that be 0.00%? They designed the statistics, so why on earth did they choose to set ‘stability’ at 2.43%? I suppose I would need a PhD to understand that.
NUMBER 1: IF GIVEN A CHOICE, WE WOULD ALL PREFER FIAT OVER GOLD OR SILVER MONEY
As I’m not a PhD, I’m not qualified to go around telling people what to do. Sure, I make suggestions from time to time, because I have a Master’s degree. I even make strong recommendations on rare occasion, because I have an honors degree. (If I only had an undergraduate degree, I wouldn’t even make suggestions. Without any degree, I suppose I wouldn’t open my mouth.) One suggestion I wouldn’t make, however, is that people be allowed to choose the money they use. I mean, what would be the point of that? We might all choose to use a different money, no one would accept these monies from each other, and so we would never engage in commerce except through direct barter. We all know how inefficient barter is. It is why money was created in the first place. And who created money? Well seeing how they control it, I suppose it must have been PhDs. There were no doubt PhDs in ancient Lydia, where coinage originated, no? The Lydian PhDs may have had the original idea but it was the Greek PhDs who supplied most of the coinage for the Hellenistic world. They knew just how much to mint. Even non-Greeks used the Greek coinage, because they liked it. (Here’s a puzzle: Were the myriad non-Greeks who chose to use Greek coinage also PhDs? If they were so clever, why didn’t they mint their own coins instead? Are some PhDs cleverer than others? I’ll have to revisit this at some point when I haven’t been drinking wine.) Then there were the Romans. Now these guys were clever. So clever that they built a huge empire, with lots of impressive buildings, roads and aqueducts. They were so clever they even discovered how to manipulate money through debasement. They were so clever they even discovered how to manipulate money through debasement. This really got going in the 3rd century, which happens to correspond with their decline. But that’s just coincidence. My more educated readers might know that the Roman Empire eventually split in two and that while currency debasement continued in the Western Empire, which all but collapsed entirely by the 5th century, the Eastern Empire maintained sound coinage and lasted until the Turkish siege of Byzantium in 1453, roughly a thousand years later. But that’s just coincidence too. Empires that debase money tend to last longer. Really.
Anyway, back to this topic about choice in money. We really don’t need it. We also don’t want it. If we did, we wouldn’t have legal tender laws that prevent choice in money in the first place, would we? After all, is choice a good thing? I try to do some shopping for my family once a week. My wife makes out a helpful shopping list with various staple items like ‘butter’. Then I go to the market and find my way to the butter section and suddenly I’m facing a wall of butter. It’s unbelievable. There’s salted and unsalted; Irish, British or Continental. There’s varying sizes, shapes, qualities, type of cow involved, oh my. And all my wife wrote was ‘butter’. So now I’ve got to get on the phone, I’ve got to ask her to be more specific, and so I call her and she’s changing the baby’s nappy, and she can’t talk, and she’s tired and can’t believe that this is the umpteenth time I’ve gone to do the shopping and yet I always call asking for some clarification, be it for ‘butter’ or ‘detergent’ or ‘kitchen roll’ or God knows what. Look, I’m not a PhD and my wife knows it. So why does she expect me to be able to read her mind? Anyway, I’m sure I’ve made the point clear that choice is a bad thing. It is just a source of confusion. So in the same way that my wife should just tell me what to purchase (as long as she is specific BTW) the government should tell us what money to use.
But just for the sake of argument, let’s entertain the fantastical notion that legal tender laws were repealed and we could use whatever we desired as money. Nothing would change. I mean, come on, we would just go on using dollars, or euros, or pounds, or yen, or whatever. Who in their right mind would actually bother to evaluate the relative merits of all of these different currencies, or of gold and silver as alternatives? Are some better stores of value than others? Perhaps. But I tell you, for most of us it would be just like looking at that intimidating ‘butter wall’ in the supermarket. We would take one look at it, shudder, and walk away.
Quantitative easing changes nothing. Remember, the PhDs are in charge of our economies and they know exactly how much our money should be worth. Those of us concerned that our money might lose purchasing power are just being paranoid. Choice is dangerous. Think Adam and Eve and you’ll get my point. Those arguing in favor of monetary freedom, of choice in money, of repealing legal tender laws, they’re just like that nasty snake Lillith in the Garden of Eden, the source of all trouble I tell you. So there you have it. Nowhere would choice be so harmful to commerce as with money itself. Even if legal-tender laws were repealed no doubt we would all continue using the stuff we already are. So for all you gold bugs out there, go ahead and purchase some gold or silver jewelry for your loved ones as holiday gifts. But please, drop all the nonsense about using it as money. Imagine you gave your spouse, or your children, or your relatives, gold and silver coins instead. They wouldn’t be able to use them as legal tender; they wouldn’t be able to wear them as jewelry. Their only ‘use’ would be as that four-letter word for Keynesians: Saving. What a way to show a lack of holiday spirit. ‘Tis the season to borrow and spend folks, as indeed it has been since August 1971.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect those of Goldmoney, unless expressly stated. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute either Goldmoney or the author(s) providing you with legal, financial, tax, investment, or accounting advice. You should not act or rely on any information contained in the article without first seeking independent professional advice. Care has been taken to ensure that the information in the article is reliable; however, Goldmoney does not represent that it is accurate, complete, up-to-date and/or to be taken as an indication of future results and it should not be relied upon as such. Goldmoney will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage, or inconvenience caused as a result of any information or opinion contained in this article and any action taken as a result of the opinions and information contained in this article is at your own risk.
Published on 24 Jan 2017
There will be an electronic currency, and it will be universal, and we must accept that fact.
No advertising, no commercial manipulaton, just the plain truth.
You think about buying bitcoins?
Watch this video first!
Jump to the News! https://youtu.be/pKTQ1DcqeRg?t=217
Written in the summer of 1918, this first attempt by Wilson to define the league laid out his thinking on the new world order he sought to foster. Library Of Congress This same person coincidentally signed into practice in 1913 a foreign federal reserve displacing Capitalism With Keynesianism which was unconstitutional ~ where private international […]
Published on 6 Aug 2017
WeAreChange.NL interviewt Sven Hulleman van Stichting Restschuld Eerlijk Delen over zijn nieuwe initiatief dat gelanceerd wordt op Prinsjesdag 2017. Hulleman introduceert een alternatief waardesysteem voor de Euro met als doel om mensen die in de armoedeval gelopen zijn een perspectief te bieden. Wat is de basis van dit initiatief en hoe werkt het? Sven Hulleman legt uit.
Wil je ons helpen om onafhankelijke media te blijven maken?
Deel mee, like, wordt abonnee! http://www.wearechange.nl
‘Free and Joyful out of the crisis with a new Bank and Currency’. After this fascinating lecture you’re at risk seeing nothing as ‘business as usual’ anymore. This lecture shows why many people live in scarcity and dissatisfaction. With one’s own bank as B of Joy, citizens will be in control again. As it happens, we’re the only real value and change ourselves. Nobody else! This lecture offers a view on a healthy economy and a fair society. In short, real changes, prosperity and wellbeing for each participant. More info: https://bofjoy.net
President Evo Morales has highlighted the total Bolivian independence from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), which have carried out “devastating economic policies for many years” in this South American nation. “A day like today in 1944 ended Bretton Woods Economic Conference (USA), in which the IMF and WB were established,” […]
What happened in Greece during the crisis? And what happens when you take on the establishment?
In this extensive interview, former finance minister of Greece Yanis Varoufakis, talks about his new book Adults In The Room – My battle with Europe’s deep establishment.
Wanneer mensen hun geld naar de bank brengen, dan denken ze dat het hun geld is, wat de bank voor hen bewaart. En dat is één van de meest geloofde fabeltjes ter wereld.
Dat is de strekking van een artikel, geschreven door het Amerikaanse Casey Research, een bedrijf dat zich bezig houdt met financieel onderzoek ten behoeve van investeerders.
Wanneer er geld wordt gestort bij een bank, dan is het vanaf dat moment eigendom van de bank.
Wat je ervoor terug krijgt is een belofte van de bank om jou terug te betalen. Het is een lening van jou aan de bank zonder onderpand.
En dat is iets heel anders dan contant geld onder je matras, alhoewel veel mensen die twee dingen met elkaar verwarren.
Wanneer jij geld op je rekening stort, dan ben je vanaf dat moment een schuldeiser van de bank. Daardoor loop je ook risico, wanneer de bank in moeilijkheden komen en dat risico is groter dan je denkt.
Veel banken gokken met het geld van hun klanten door middel van riskante investeringen en als het mis gaat, kan de rekeninghouder van die bank een groot probleem hebben.
Natuurlijk zijn er overheden die bedragen tot een bepaald niveau bij een bank garanderen, maar volgens Casey research zijn overheidsgaranties slechts voldoende om minder dan een halve dollarcent te garanderen voor iedere dollar die ze verzekeren. Dat is dan voor Amerika, maar dat zal bij ons niet anders zijn. Als het echt mis gaat met (grote) banken, dan staan ook overheden met hun mond vol tanden.
Een schrikbarend voorbeeld van wat er kan gebeuren is natuurlijk nog altijd Cyprus waar enkele jaren geleden de mensen gingen slapen en op een doorsnee zaterdagochtend wakker werden en ontdekten dat het geld van hun rekening was verdwenen.
We praten daarbij niet over een bananenrepubliek ergens in donker Afrika, maar we praten hier over een lidstaat van de Europese Unie.
De moraal van het verhaal is, dat wanneer er echte problemen ontstaan bij banken en/of landen, dan is de rekeninghouder de laatste die er achter komt. Juridisch kunnen ze dat, want jij hebt het geld vrijwillig geleend aan die bank zonder onderpand, op basis van een garantie van de overheid die bij lange na niet genoeg geld bij elkaar kan scharrelen om alle rekeninghouders schadeloos te stellen, mocht het faliekant misgaan.
De mensen in Cyprus konden zich ook niet voorstellen dat hun geld de volgende ochtend zou zijn verdwenen van hun rekening en toch gebeurde het.
Casey Research komt tot de volgende conclusie:
Het is een oncomfortabele waarheid voor Noord Amerikanen en Europeanen om te beseffen dat dingen veel en veel erger zullen worden als de huidige politieke en economische wind blijft waaien uit de richting dat het nu doet.
Door de centrale banken wereldwijd is er de grootste financiële bubbel ooit gecreëerd. De rentes zijn lager dan ze ooit in de 5.000 jaar van de geschiedenis zijn geweest en in sommige delen van de wereld zijn ze zelfs negatief.
Wij leven in een financieel Alice in Wonderland en de gevolgen van het klappen van de huidige bubbel zijn nog veel gevaarlijker dan alleen maar financiële gevolgen.
Towards the end of his speech, Dr. Weidman remarked that policy intervention may be required, not to address a crisis, but to address technology. Digitalization has the potential to provide financial benefits to the economy, with the risk, however, of disintermediating central banks. As such, the ability of central banks to conduct monetary policy diminishes […]
Dutch banker Ronald Bernard exposes the elite. Translated by Vigilant Citizen.
Please support me on https://www.patreon.com/vigilantcitizen
Follow me on Twitter @ https://www.twitter.com/vigilantYT
All clips used in accordance with The Fair Use Act
Published on 1 Jun 2017
Tall White’s, NWO and the future of mankind. Rudolf the tall white alien. No. 336
Published on 2 Jun 2017
The hidden truth about the Internet and how you will live in 30 years.
Rudolf of Germany gives you a glimpse into the future.
The Bitcoin white paper named Peer to Peer – Electronic Cash System, was first introduced on the 31 October 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto – an incredible gift to the world amidst troubling financial times. The first transaction with value took place on 22 May 2010 when Laszlo Hanyecz made bought two pizzas in Jacksonville, Florida for 10,000 Bitcoin. Within five days, the price grew 1000%, increasing from $0.008 to $0.08 for 1 Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is the Internet of Money!
See Bitcoin value growth over 5 years below:-
Bitcoin Value growth over the past year – 3 April 2016 to 3 April 2017:-
25% discount when you purchase Cryptopay debit card – CLICK HERE
Get a FREE BITCOIN EDUCATION and keep abreast of the news by following
Bitcoin seems unstoppable, topping $1,800 for the first time on 9th of May 2017.
Is it too late to get involved in Bitcoin? Definitely not.
Get your Bitcoins here: https://goo.gl/rEIKC3
Bitcoin has been making gains since April and is rallying in London having risen over 33 per cent in 30 days, according to the Coindesk bitcoin price index.
“Bitcoin is exciting because it shows how cheap it can be, it is better than currency because you don’t have to be in the same place and of course for large transactions currency can be inconvenient.” – Bill Gates
“The Japanese have recently warmed their approach towards bitcoin by treating it legally as a form of payment – a ratification and bringing into the regulatory fold. China’s clampdown on exchanges can also be seen as a positive move for the industry too.” said Charles Hayter.
Bitcoin recently has shrugged off China restricting trade, the SEC’s rejecting of the two bitcoin ETFs, and threats from developers to create a “hard fork” that would split the cryptocurrency in two.
Bitcoin was created in 2009 and has a current Market Capitalization of $29,753,633,028.
Share this video:
Must watch next:
Anonymous: Ex-Illuminati Banker Exposes the Top of the Illuminati Pyramid
Anonymous: How Global Elites Secretly Control The Planet Since Day 1
The Rothschild Empire – The True Leaders of The Planet Earth
The Rothschild Family – Richest Family on Earth
George Soros – The Zionist Puppet Master Who Considers Himself GOD EXPOSED
Anonymous: We Know Who Owns The Federal Reserve!
Gepubliceerd op 31 mei 2017
Many experts talk about money. But very few people really know the evil truth behind it. Can you tell real money from fake money, real value from empty promises?
A look at money from a alien perspective.
Bron: http://www.volkwordtwakker.nl/en/interviews/ronald-bernard/Hoi (English)
Bekijk onderstaande video aandachtig en deel hem ook met vrienden en familie. Het is van het grootste belang dat mensen beseffen hoe de wereld echt in elkaar zit.
How is it possible that all these rapists, pedophiles, human traffickers, murderers, devil worshipers, terrorists, bankers, fraudulent europarlementariëres freely continue their actvities against sterile?
Listen to the revealing interview with Ronald Bernard B. Joyful which he talks openly about the ins and outs of the world of big money and the reason why he “crashed” when his conscience began to play. Click for the video (The world of big money: revelations from an insider).
OR THEY RULE THE WORLD? WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!!!!
Our whole lifestyle and care system is built on Satan’s foundation. The whole house of cards is collapsing with a purpose unlikely. So that the illumination (NEW WORLD ORDER) later may grasp hold of the world’s total power. There must occur before chaos, and then offer a solution to the population:
The dreaded RFID CHIP …
What is NOW the greatest danger that awaits us? A society without cash !!!!!!!
As Adolf Hitler be had swastika (the swastika), as the anti-Christ will have its insignia, a mark. Moreover, he wants to use it as a sign of fidelity. He will use it in its battle with the Christians.
People need food to live. For this reason he proclaims that no one may buy or sell unless he has the mark of the beast on hand or forehead. The antichrist will say: “Whether you wear the mark or you can not buy or sell”. Those who do not bear the mark will be unable to buy or sell and will even be slain on the spot.
Today, bank cards with PIN and chippers have taken over a large part of the cash transactions. It is not hard to imagine that soon will disappear even cash. In the purse are many steps that can be replaced by more convenient single chip managed by a giant central computer. It keeps track of how much credit you have. But the chip serves as a social security number, registration of the license, registration and payment of travel by public transport, all kinds of cards and so on. The technique has long been that far. There can be stored on personal or career development, all from the cradle to the grave. The chip is nowadays so small that it can be inserted under the skin of the forehead.
If you are on earth during the Tribulation, think of this: under no circumstances take the mark of the beast. Because if one does do this, one loses it all the opportunity for salvation. The wear of the beast is the sin which is not forgive.
Read more about the dreaded RFID CHIP by clicking.
Our world and our future? The New World Order? Oh no? With one world army, one world religion and one world power that dominates the entire world population? Oh no? With CHIP in our hand? CASH and no more? Oh no?
♥ We’d opt for LIGHT, LOVE and PEACE ♥ We would like to give, receive and SHARE ♥
♥ Using FREE ENERGY ♥
Do not you? Timely wake up, get up and trade …
All written information should be on this site multiplied by vermeldiing the source!
Financially, there are only four countries. One bank, the Bank of International Settlement, run by the Rothschild’s in Geneva, Switzerland. The same Rothschild’s who are the Bankers to the Vatican. The countries that do not clear through the BIS, are
Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran North Korea and Syria. Is it any wonder Russia and the US are targeting these countries?
The City of London has been granted various special privileges since the Norman Conquest, such as the right to run its own affairs, partly due to the power of its financial capital. These are also mentioned by the Statute of William and Mary in 1690.
City State of London is the world’s financial power centre and wealthiest square mile on earth — contains Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, London Stock Exchange, ALL…
View original post 1.057 woorden meer