Fed "plan"?--just keep printing currency till the system blows (hyper-inflation), ho ho ho ho

Apollonian

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
Fed "plan"?--just keep printing currency till the system blows (hyper-inflation), ho ho ho ho

Fed Plan is Print Money Until System Blows-Bix Weir​

By Greg Hunter On October 4, 2015 In Political Analysis 185 Comments

Link: http://usawatchdog.com/fed-plan-is-print-money-until-system-blows-bix-weir/


Financial writer and analyst Bix Weir is not surprised by the Federal Reserve’s policies because it is all part of the long term plan. Weir explains, “The goal, since we went off the gold standard in 1971, has been to run the financial system as long and as hard as possible, sucking up all the benefits of fiat money, and there are very few attempts to slow this mess down. The idea is to put as much money as you can . . . until you have printed so much money the system implodes. This was a Nobel Prize winning paper in the 1960’s called “On the Road to the Golden Age.” It basically says if you have this freedom and flexibility with the monetary system, run it as hard as you can until people stop accepting the unbacked fiat money, then crash the system and go back to something safe and sound after it all blows up. . . . What they need is a big enough bubble so when it crashes, it take out all the derivatives, the malfeasance of the banks, the good guys and the bad guys and all the things going on behind the scenes. They need the bubble so big, and that’s what they are doing right now is blowing the bubble so big everybody feels the effect of a crash.”

When is the next crash coming? Weir says it will all unwind before “the end of this year.” Weir contends, “The decision will need to be made this year. The banks will, once again, come to Congress and say we need money for a bailout. That decision will be made by the U.S. people, not by Congress, not by the Fed and not by the banks. It’s going to come to the people, and I believe they will say no to bailouts.”

So, is inflation or deflation coming? Weir says, “It’s not really inflation or deflation. It is a ceasing of the system. After the system crashes, no one is going to accept a Federal Reserve Note. So, I wouldn’t call it deflation. I would call it a restart. What they call it at the Fed is a ‘creative destruction event.’ Meaning, in order to move on to the next step, you have to destroy all the bad that has built up, and there is a lot of bad. We see the derivatives, and we say oh, that’s bad. There is so much more going on behind the scenes. We’re talking hundreds of trillions, if not quadrillions, of dollars in electronic assets that need to be wiped away, wiped clean completely. Otherwise, where all these assets are concentrated, they will have control over us, and that’s what we need to get rid of. We need to get rid of their control of us.”

So, is a “Mad Max” world a possibility? Weir says, “That’s a possibility because of the way they have built up these bubbles. Remember, there are different groups of ‘they.’ There is ‘they’ the bad guys, the banksters, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, that type of group. They want the system to implode because they want to implement their one-world government. That’s what they want, and they want to erase all their bad deeds from the last 100 years. There are good guys who want the system to implode to take back control of the monetary system in the United States from these bad guys. So, we are at a situation now where they both want it to happen, and that’s why they have built these bubbles so big. They seem to be making decisions completely off the wall, but truthfully, it is all leading to the same thing. Blow the bubble as big as possible so that it implodes. Then, you will see a fight to get control of the monetary system after the implosion.”

On war, Bix says, “The bad guys right now are trying to start World War III. That is the real dark side of how this thing might end. It will be China and Russia against us, and that is not a good thing.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Bix Weir of RoadtoRoota.com.

(There is much more in the video interview.)
 
Re: Fed "plan"?--just keep printing currency till the system blows (hyper-inflation), ho ho ho ho

Stamp of disapproval: Postage increases set for end of January​

By PatriotRising -
January 6, 2019

Link: http://patriotrising.com/stamp-of-disapproval-postage-increases-set-for-end-of-january/

stamp tax
Nothing lasts forever — not even 50-cent postage stamps.

The United States Postal Service announced that the cost of its Forever stamps will rise five cents apiece on Jan. 27 from 50 cents to 55 cents.

The 10 percent spike in Forever stamps is the largest price leap since 1991.

Each additional letter ounce will cost an extra 15 cents, which is a decrease from 21 cents. The cost to mail a 2-ounce stamped letter will actually drop from 71 cents to 70 and the cost of a postcard remains fixed at 35 cents.

Priority mail will also rise about 10 percent. A priority small box that once was $7.20 will rise 70 cents, and a priority medium box which previously cost $13.65 will now set you back $14.35.

In 2018, the USPS lost about $3.9 billion — over $1 billion more than the previous year. For 12 straight years, it has been hemorrhaging cash and is not taxpayer-funded. It generates revenue from selling products and services.

The price hikes come amid criticism from President Donald Trump, who referred to the USPS as Amazon’s delivery boy, falsely claiming the online commerce behemoth has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.

“Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer?” tweeted Trump in late 2017. “Should be charging MUCH MORE!”
 

The Bank of England: Money Creation in Their Own Words​

by Darren Brady Nelson | Mises Institute
March 17th 2023, 3:06 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-bank-of-england-money-creation-in-their-own-words/

The Bank of England has sadly & predictably upheld the fractional reserve banking system.

In March 2014 the world’s oldest central bank, the Bank of England (BoE), did every advocate of sound money a big but unintentional favor by publishing an official introduction to and an official detailed account of unsound money.

Given both the importance of and the lack of publicity regarding these two seminal papers over the past nine years, even here at mises.org, the focus in this piece will be on quoting some of the BoE’s “greatest hits.” (This approach was also taken by this author in 2020 when quoting from the Black Lives Matter website prior to its being scrubbed.)

Modern Money Introduction​

The BoE sets the stage in the paper “Money in the Modern Economy: An Introduction” by defining money in terms of the following three important roles:

The first role of money is to be a store of value—something that is expected to retain its value in a reasonably predictable way over time. . . . Money’s second role is to be a unit of account—the thing that goods and services are priced in. . . . Third, money must be a medium of exchange—something that people hold because they plan to swap it for something else, rather than because they want the good itself.
Click to expand...
This multidimensional definition (and other similar ones) is largely accepted by both free-market and government-centric economists alike. To its credit, the BoE expands upon the first role:

These functions are all closely linked to each other. For example, an asset is less useful as the medium of exchange if it will not be worth as much tomorrow—that is, if it is not a good store of value. Indeed, in several countries . . . the traditional currency has become a poor store of value due to very high rates of price inflation. . . . Gold or silver that was mined hundreds of years ago would still be valuable today.
Click to expand...
Also to its credit (pun intended), the BoE accurately and honestly describes fiat money:

Since 1931, [BoE] money has been fiat money. Fiat or “paper” money is money that is not convertible to any other asset (such as gold or other commodities). . . . Because fiat money is accepted by everyone in the economy as the medium of exchange, although the [BoE] is in debt to the holder of its money, that debt can only be repaid in more fiat money.
Click to expand...
But, to its discredit, the BoE inaccurately or dishonestly defends it as well:

But the Bank permanently abandoned offering gold in return for notes in 1931 so that Britain could better manage its economy during the Great Depression. . . . With fiat money, changes in the demand for money by the public can be matched by changes in the amount of money available to them. When the amount of money is linked to a commodity, such as gold, this places a limit on how much money there can be, since there is a limit to how much gold can be mined. And that limit is often not appropriate for the smooth functioning of the economy.
Click to expand...

Modern Money Creation​

In the second paper, “Money Creation in the Modern Economy,” the BoE right out of the gate happily busts the myth about bank savings and loans but then sadly obfuscates the mystery of central and fractional reserve banking:

The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks: Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits. In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money “multiplied up” into more loans and deposits.
Click to expand...
However, this does sound like “central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans and deposits”:

When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created. For this reason, some economists have referred to bank deposits as “fountain pen money,” created at the stroke of bankers’ pens when they approve loans.
Click to expand...
And, this does sound like “the central bank does . . . fix the amount of money in circulation”:

The higher stock of deposits may mean that banks want, or are required, to hold more central bank money in order to meet withdrawals by the public or make payments to other banks. And reserves are, in normal times, supplied “on demand” by the [BoE] to commercial banks in exchange for other assets on their balance sheets.
Click to expand...
The BoE importantly highlights, “Of the two types of broad money, bank deposits make up the vast majority—97% of the amount currently in circulation,” whilst noting that “broad money is a measure of the total amount of money held by households and companies in the economy.” Yet, despite the BoE’s begrudging admission to the modern statist symbiosis of central and commercial banks, the BoE largely dismisses this Nobel laureate’s reminder that an “inflationary money supply” is “inflation”: “Milton Friedman (1963) famously argued that ‘inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.’ So changes in the money supply may contain valuable information about spending and inflationary pressure in the economy.”

Gold Standard Conclusion​

The BoE’s introductory paper unwittingly provides a nice overview of how sound money used to work once upon a time:

When the [BoE] was founded in 1694, its first banknotes were convertible into gold. The process of issuing “notes” that were convertible into gold had started earlier than this, when goldsmith-bankers began storing gold coins for customers. The goldsmiths would give out receipts for the coins, and those receipts soon started to circulate as a kind of money. The [BoE] would exchange gold for its banknotes in a similar way—it stood ready to swap its notes back into gold on demand. Other than a few short periods, that was how currency worked for most of the next 250 years—the “gold standard.”
Click to expand...
It is not uncommon for economists in academia, government, and media to suggest that fractional reserve banking is simultaneously an incredible conspiracy theory and yet a credible economic system.

The BoE has happily and officially debunked the conspiracy but sadly and predictably upheld the fractional reserve banking system. The latter is despite its own statistics, clearly demonstrating its failed ability to “better manage [its] economy during [or since] the Great Depression” that it helped create compared to the previous “250 years [of] the ‘gold standard’ [when the bank would simply] exchange gold for [its] banknotes.”
 
Last edited:
Lose ur money?--make a miserable investment?--NO WORRIES, suckers--tax-payers will bail u out--isn't that lovely?--great incentive to make gambling type investments, 'cuz if u lose, tax-paying suckers will bail u out, suckers.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top