Money and Currency

Money is a store of wealth that may be possible to use as a means of exchange and currency is a means of exchange that may be possible to use as a store of wealth.  Definitions are important.

Offshore Tax Avoidance & Cameron's Panama Hat

Another stage-managed 'leak' of documents enamours the world as this time the mainstream media tell tails against the ready made usual suspects of most wicked who have been off-shoring their wealth in tax-havens.  Naughty naughty.

Strange it is that amongst this cast of pantomime villains David Cameron, Britain's own beloved leader, is probably 'at it' too as it is evident his deceased father was an expert in the tax avoidance industry and operated companies to manage his wealth outside of the reach of the UK tax-man's grasp.

Strange it also is that David Cameron makes oblique statements about if he and his family derive benefit, or will someday derive benefit, from something that in all probability, near certainty, beyond reasonable doubt, exists: a substantial pot of gold buried on a treasure island with a pirate's map only they have possession of.  Why else would his father have formed off-shore companies with board meetings in Switzerland and all if there was no more than the £2.5 million declared in the UK at his death.  That is not enough ever for a decent London house these days.  We can see; David's wearing a Panama, we can see.

The retching hypocrisy is only illustrative of the quality of the material that survives the political system to rise to the top.

But in the wider scale of things, outside of the blatant perfidy, I am happy the wealthy work so hard to conceal and protect their lucre from taxation and death duties.  It is a war of attrition.  The higher taxes are the harder more wealthy folk will work to find the loopholes.  But the harder it is to find the loopholes the higher taxes will become.  If taxes were very low avoiding them would only need to be a little bit complicated.  As taxes rise most taxpayers would take prudent steps to avoid incurring them if it is simple and economical to do so.  High wealth tax payer's desire to invest in tax avoidance mechanisms helps keeps tax levels low.

If it is to be believed; JK Rowling famously admits to paying UK taxes without taking advantage of avoidance strategies and yet she is still one of the richest people in Britain.  How can this be?  She is a world wide best selling author and clearly has won substantial royalties all round but it is not like she owns and controls a giant global petro-chemical industry or media and aviation empire.  Her publisher's should be earning a few bob too and on other writer's works also.  Could it be she is showing that almost all the truly well-off do not have their money as visible as she does.

Apparently most multi-millionaires are self-made.  Is that because they fritter their spoils away in later life or is that because their eventual beneficiaries have trust-funds and off-shore investments made ready for when the time comes to pass it on.

The various means of tax planning for the wealthy are not the exception they are the norm.  You do not get to earn a fortune to let half of it vaporise in death duties, you do not have that mentality.  You do not pay more in tax than you can legal avoid either.  And the more that is at stake the more time and fees you will invest to hold-on to it. That is just good business.

None of this simple commercial reality for the taxation of the prime yielding human-herd tax-livestock is not known to the policy setters.  They understand.  And more; they understand that the ultimate tax-avoidance includes exiting the nation with all your wealth.  People would rather be rich overseas than taxed into poverty.  People would rather live on their wealth than slave away to earn nothing after the tax-man has took it all.

There is a competitive market in the provision of a national tax-efficient environment and top of that game has been for years the United Kingdom - not for the residents, the domiciles, but for the non-domiciles it is treasure island incarnate, with shops and shows and glamour.  The UK is the biggest off-shore provider, especially in combination with its extra little tax havens dotted here and there about the world.  For the international money/power super-rich there has been nothing else like it.  Until now!

It is becoming apparent that for the globe-trotting ultra money clique the USA is sharpening its offer of hush-hush trust facilitation and with good reason.  Having their money in your banks keeps your 'printed' money in demand and, in the event of a global central banking funny 'money' over-issue crises there is nothing better than to have the rich of the world all keeping their eggs in your basket to focus their attention on keeping the USD then durable for a while longer still no doubt.

The Suffocation of Economic Central Control

Centralised control, whether 'the state' acting as if the market or, ostensibly, the 'market' acting as if 'the state', fails (as does tickling yourself fail to raise a chuckle).  What central 'control' is supposed to do is 'sense and react' and therein lays the two fundamental problems:

1/. the input is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be sensitive enough, accurate enough, smart enough to take account of every permutation)?
2/. the output is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be reactive enough, delicate enough, effective enough to take account of every permutation)?

And that does not take account of the two secondary problems, (problems that would remain even if the system of centralised control, be it faux market or state, did not suffer from the two fundamental problems):

a/. the centralised control is always going to attempt to manipulate the market by way of attempting to provide favourable conditions bias to suit its own agenda
b/. the faulty outputs and bias manipulation of the centralised control will distort the market away from the form it would otherwise naturally be drawn to.

Centralised control treats the economy as though it is one big thing and that then all the micro commercial activities will feed from that initiative, as if little piranhas swarming onto whatever gigantic carcass has been fed to them.  That may be fine for feeding identical fish but the economy is rightly comprised of totally disparate elements - it is an ultimately diverse ecosystem.

The great thing about diverse ecosystems is that, left alone, they manage themselves.  There is still a form of centralised control of economies but that is because: each and every element of the whole is a self regulating economy in itself.  The effect of each element, free to act in its own best self interest, is that a system of each element's independent economy acts upon a plethora of spontaneous and autonomous sub-economies to effectively create a whole.

It is not only imposable to replicate or replace the effectiveness of this type of system, it is unnecessary to try (unless the intention of influencing is for one sub-economy to do so in order to attempt to change the whole for reasons of self-interest).  It is unnecessary to try to replicate a system of sub-economies because: since the sub-economy system is so refined and reactive it cannot be bettered for servicing the interests of the sub-economy system as a whole.

There is no such thing as 'the economy', it is just a conceptual idea to explain the 'system of sub-economies' as a whole, just as there is not such thing as a forest, that is just a word for the conceptual idea of many trees, plants, animals living together in one place, symbiotically acting as a if a whole too.

Separation of the Economy from the State

Whilst we have 'the state' I do not see how it can release the control it effects over economy if only because politicians, businesses and other special interest groups will always have control or influence over the government and therefore the institutions of the market. It is not possible to have those acting as 'the state' submit that status because, by the very existence of 'the state', there will always exists a means for 'special interest groups' to have influence and control, especially influence and control over the economy.

It is not possible to have these institutions of the market and of government constructed and enforced in such a way that there is a separation of the economy from the State. The cause is not the 'way' the institutions of the market and of government are 'constructed and enforced' but rather, simply, that 'the state' and its institutions exist and therefore have influence and control. Clearly: if we did not have 'the state' we would not have that means for special interest groups to influence and control the economy or need to attempt to construct and enforce a government in such a way that there is then a separation of the economy from idea of 'the state'.

Is BitCoin a Bit of a Con?

What is interesting about Bitcoin is it has been a 'proof of concept' and the concept is now fundamentally proven. So what is next? As with the emergence of the WWW there was this 'eye of the storm' period when, for a while, the systems were in place and nothing much occurred. Then came the DOTCOM bubble. From the ashes today's enduring players arose: formed and consolidated. It appeared to me that nothing much was initially happening because nobody wanted to deal with companies and brands they had no historical knowledge of in the bricks-and-mortar world. Once these friendly faces emerged people went on-line and started shopping with them and soon also with a few notable internet born exceptions: Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay.  I recall Amazon was 'the one' - the big newcomer ground breaker.

Bitcoin has been victim of its optimistic supporters in so much as people have speculatively invested in Bitcoins whereas that is not its real purpose. It is first and foremost supposed to be a means of exchange - that is its strength. But as a means of exchange it has not started to be truly useful. I cannot see making my larger payments say from UKP to JPY is really helped by using Bitcoin as the mechanism of transfer. It needs me to hold funds as Bitcoin and sellers to want to do the same and that is a long way off. It is an unknown and subject to sharp value fluctuations.

Now if the IMF came up with a son-of-Bitcoin that was indelibly tethered to their SDR basket of currencies the day of the digital coin would happen immediately. And if every major bank offered access to the same service too: people would start doing business. This I predict is what is going to happen.

Now all that is fine and dandy but the Bitcoin has one more feature that I presume could not be the case with an IMF-SDR digital-coin which is: Bitcoin is not a fiat currency - there is a finite volume of possible Bitcoin algorithms - so Bitcoin will tend to grow in value if and when its uptake becomes more prevalent - be pro-rata deflationary with growing usage.

The people who understand this make the bulk of the speculative investors today and they have at least 'keep the wheels on the wagon' to this point in time. Bitcoin's potential growth in value yet to come is roughly (optimistically) equated to the value of all the fiat money in the world today.

Will it happen. I think not. There may be a limited volume of Bitcoin's possible to produce but there is no limit to the introduction of other technically comparable digital-coins that could share the supposed same deflationary quality (limited volume). So the idea of a limited volume is not really correct.

I predict there is a place for Bitcoin as an early market leader, an established brand, but it will be joined by a plethora of digital-coins backed by known brands and entities, including maybe even digital versions of existing national currencies, a PayPalPunt, an AmazonAmericano, an AppleSeed and the soon to be popular RothschildRenminbi. The water could become very muddy.

The only survivor could be the 'block-chain' which manages the Bitcoin records amongst other tasks too. But since the block chain is the keys to recording every financial transaction conducted I am very doubtful of its continued independence. I think the UN will claim that crown as the corner-stone to its new global tax regime. Then we can start to understand what may lay behind this anonymous experiment as has been similarly suspected of apparent 'new start' IT providers throughout the history of the digital revolution.

See also: Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

Your Property is the Last Resort of the Fractional/Central Banking Complex

I do not have a fundamental issue with a fractional reserve banking system nor with a central bank as a banker's lender of last resort. What I do have an issue with is 'the state' using its monopoly power of violence based coercion (the threat and use of force) to tax the people and underwrite that central bank.

In a stateless society people could legitimately offer banking services which employed a fractional reserve method of money creation and dealt in a form of money brought-about in this way. These banks, by way of assurance of their eventual solvency, could employ the services of central banks to effectively 'insure' their ability to repay depositors.

What those stateless central banks could not legitimately do is force the public to underwrite their losses. It would then just be up to the prospective customers of such banks to judge if they believed their deposits were safe in such institutions. And if those banks went bust the owners and directors of the bank would be liable to the creditors for their losses, every penny of their personal assets would be liable for forfeit.

So I think it is important to, truthfully and accurately, identify the real 'elephant' in this room. The elephant is not money, not fractional reserve money creation, not the bankers, not the banks, not the central banks, not even the inflation of an over-produced fiat currency. The elephant is the relationship between 'the state', money and banks, a relationship which indemnifies the banking system from its losses at the expense of an unwitting public.

It may be that the bankers have manipulated and cajoled 'the state' into the position of offering their commercial interests this indemnity (along with the protection of limited liability incorporation); that much is apparent to those who have studied the history of banking. But that is the prerogative of businesses: take whatever advantage you 'legally' can within the prevailing system.

Clearly 'the state' should never subcontract the function of the creation of money to entities outside of itself and yet continue to offer the resources of 'the state' to back-up that non-governmental commercial banking system. But whilst there is a central power, such as 'the state', it will always be at risk of being subjected to whatever pressures can be brought to avail. Pressures to turn the power of 'the state' into the service of those who would see that 'usurpation of power' gives them an irreproachable commercial benefit.

'The state' is, first and foremost, the mechanism by which the money-power and ruling oligarchy does their bidding. That is the purpose of 'the state' and all other apparent functions just illusionary 'window dressing' to fool the people into the belief that the role of the state is to serve the interests of the people.

Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

The drive toward a centrally issued single global currency appears to be a long desired outcome of the banking elites who substantially own, control and benefit from the central banking network about the world. 

As seen with the incantation of the EU, originally sold to the plebiscite as a trading union, the launch of the EURO single currency was widely understood to be unsustainable without the simultaneous total political and economic integration of the disparate independent nation member states.  This obviously intentional outcome was endlessly scoffed-at and robust derided but the conclusion, now it is upon us, is simple: the creation of the EURO was either implemented by utter ignorant fools or it was a covertly intentional device used to force the amalgamation of the independent European nations into a Greater Europe.

With Europe as the template moves are clearly under-way to enact the same set of circumstances in the forming of a North America political and monetary union and then undoubtedly further regional trade unions will be subjected to similar drives towards their forming political unions too.

It appears that simultaneous to that momentum the SDR mechanism will gain significance apparently with the objective of developing the SRD value into more than a IMF and central bankers device by allowing transactions to be conducted between parties in SDR values without need to exchange into any other of the root currency when making settlement.  No doubt when an SDR currency becomes established the demand will then be for, step two, the currencies included in the 'pot' to peg their individual rate to a given value.

The effect of this SDR based currency will be to draw the major currencies, and the separate sovereign economic states from which they emanate, into the same eventual and inevitable trap as that which the previously independent nation states of Europe were enticed.  So I conclude that it will be greatly as a result of this growing global monetary union from which a growing global economic and subsequently global political union will also be demanded and formed.

When rarely questioned, the political momentum behind this open conspiracy is justified and explained as the ambition to raise-up the poorer economies of nations across the world to parity and to bring about the end of war between separate sovereign nation states.  On the surface that may be so but at what cost?

The cost will be the lack of competition between states.  When each country has to vie in the 'market' against each other to offer the best environment for a flourishing social and economic condition, nations that make bad choices pay the price and learn from nations that do well and thrive.  People and business are drawn to the more liberal and successful nations leaving the tardy nations one simple option: change for the better.

The international central banking establishment is not the property of the nation states or their populous.  The mechanism behind the issue of money is the state-dependent corporate (read neo-feudal) and so clearly, at some level, all actually privately owned.  Issuing money is a vastly profitable enterprise and inflation adds a further cost to the use of money to the people who have it as any-sort of measure or store of wealth.

There is no better means for the enslavement of the people: all encompassing yet covert.  The banker's tribute is gathered by 'the state' by way of taxation to pay interest on debt and by way of the perpetuation of the system of 'the state' for their continued control and gain. Whilst money is monopolised in any way by 'the state' there will always be the propensity for this ultimate and fundamental tool to be usurped and used to profit against the interests of the population and for dictatorial control.

Slaves to the Banker State

The missing factor in the housing market equation is the lack of consequences or to express that another way: imaginary limitations granted to lenders and borrower's liabilities.

This is the fault of the state. How? If I lend the capital to a house purchaser and they default I suffer a loss - that focuses my mind as to the real risk and consequence. If my loans to borrowers were made with capital that I did not own but was nevertheless available to me as a result of, say, my substantial and consistent business cash-flow, that would be a risky business strategy, but I could argue I was still not actually 'trading insolvently' because the loan I had made formed an asset on my balance sheet.

How could I take such a risk (knowing if my borrower defaults I cannot pay my liabilities)? Easily if I have a state registered Limited Liability company (Ltd Co) and I measure the potential for profit exceeds the value of my Ltd Co should this loan default and the company go bust (unable to pay creditors). Most Ltd Co's do not see this sort of prospect as making commercial sense even with their directors enjoying Limited Liability protection because they do not see the potential for sufficient return against capital available and the prospect of risk as a viable equation (let alone its questionable legality within the scope of trading insolvently as a Ltd Co).

Yet banks do expose themselves to this risk. Why? Because they can create almost as much money as they require so long as they are either receiving deposits at a sufficient rate, are re-financing loans or are able to enjoy interbank lending to fund the loans they are making. And then the full risk is ultimately mitigated because the central bank will act as 'lender of last resort' should their house of cards threaten to fall. Whilst the beneficiaries of central banks are hard to identify the guarantor is not: it is the state. But what actually is 'the state'? The state is a conduit for the power of the forced taxation of human society.

The only viable and moral solution is to remove the link between the productive, wealth creation, ability of human society and the financial indemnification of all types company owners for their losses - especially banks. Bank's owners will be very focused as to the risk they are taking when they see all their private property, past and future, is at risk. Bankers want the all the reward for themselves and YOU to take all losses. Bankers have used a succession manufactured wars to indebt states to them and to force states to allow the grant of this present banking system. They have created repeated economic bubbles and crashes to force the state to borrow more of the money they create via the permitted wizardry of fractional-reserve-banking.

Whilst we continue to have human society controlled and bleed via a 'state' we continue to allow a means for the banking money power elites to tap-in to the life-blood of humanity, through the power of state taxation, for their own gains at the cost of all others. The only enduring protection is to end the state!

The Illusion of Money

Home-made money may not be accepted as 'legal tender' but anyone is free to buy and sell in any currency they wish. Just the state does not have to accept it as payment of debt and nor does anyone else.  If I buy and sell in JP YEN exclusively I must still pay my tax bill in UK Pounds.

Because of this the illusion is that the only good means of 'tender' is the state issued 'legal tender' and so there appears to be no real market for any alternative currencies, even those that may have clearly very substantial backing.

If there was an alternative currency of substantial backing and the state declared they would accept it by way of payment, recognise it as legal tender, it would potentially become useful and adopted.

But that is not going to occur simply because: if the new currency's backing is more resilient (not a fiat currency and so resistant to inflation) than the state's own tender (which is an inflationary fiat currency) we should all be able to workout what will result.

This is one reason why the state holds the monopoly for the production of their legal tender. The other reason is publishing a fiat currency is, well, like printing your own money.

So why does the banking system not take the advantage and publish their own currencies in competition with the state? (It would be easy to develop insurances for exchanging to state money for paying your tax-bills and the like).

Banks are not going to try to compete because it is the banks that actually produce a large part of the state currency, from nothing, with fractional reserve banking for which they are granted a monopoly by the state. So effectively they are already reaping in the benefit whilst getting the state to act as lender of last resort.

So why does a non banking organisation not issue a new currency? They could but the existing banking system would refuse to deal with it so an entirely independent banking structure would have to be put into place. Bit Coins is an example of this concept.

Woof woof - the Dogs of war

As though the fault just lays with the dogs who do the dirty-work. The dogs are spanked and all the little people go back to sleep thinking they have seen justice, that the principle has been served. Yes dogs need to know they will be punished too but who are their masters?

The Generation of a Generation's Debt.

The problem is the bankers have their losses underwritten by taxpayers. There will always be imprudent lending decisions whilst bankers usurp the authority of the state in this way.  If bankers did not have this safety net would they have lent anything to Greece in the first place - of cause not.

And this is far from over. Once all the world's banking systems and nations are fully propped-up with debt, interest rates will start to rise to the point that then the only payments will be interest, never making inroads onto the capital sum. The state is used to milk the taxpayer to meet the banker's never-ending interest charges for debts they created in the first place by vast imprudent lending.

And yet where does the money these international bankers lend come from. How come they have reserves so colossal they can make loans the major nations of the world cannot put-together themselves?
It is that these international bankers control almost all the world's central banks (not Syria's or Iran's though surprise surprise) so they actually are the ones 'creating' the money. These 'privately' operated central banks use the ability that should belong to the nation states of people of the world and then lend that money they create for nothing at interest paid to themselves.

It is a sick system that is constantly draining the abundance of the world away from humanity and perpetuating poverty instead.

The only good thing is usually the bulk of this sort of debt is generated by war.

The inner meaning of the Troikas Greek money shovel

Words play an interesting part in discerning the mechanisms of the state. So often the elite's selection of which betray unspoken truths, a desire for self-aggrandisement (ego), an element of deceptive spin along with the inner-culture's mocking and vaguely coded humour.

Obsequiously The Troika is a hearty Russian symbol, a winter sledge pulled by three lusty horses - hooray for our saviours! But this too, be cautioned, hints at the dark soviet heart lurking in the EU and the UN.

The Troika also references a Triumvirate, the Roman establishment's employment of Triumviri special commissions, of three men of equal power, assembled to deal with various thorny matters. That's the ego.

The spin is that Modern Greece has a history of Troikas or Triumvirate, occurring at pivotal points, and with not entirely negative connotations to the people of today.

And the jibe is the reference given in that the term sounds like Troy. Certainly these three gift bearing horses contain more than a nasty sting behind their tails.

Bank of England warn quantitative easing could lead to “unwarranted depreciation of sterling”

I did not appoint these fools. I did not sign-up for this. But it looks like I'll have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

When you have an unlimited and growing financial liability to which it can be demanded that you yield - with all the 'authority' of a government by way of its absolute powers of taxation and force - you are extremely exposed. Nobody in their right mind would accept such a liability willingly.

This so called 'quantitative easing' can only lead to “a depreciation of sterling”. That is obvious. The only reason depreciation would not be apparent is if every other currency is being produced at the same rate or there is seen to be an equivalent growth of value of the specific money producing nation's total economic resource.

The situation is clearly the former: depreciation is not so apparent, with sterling yet, because most other major currencies are being produced at a similar rate. But that does not mean the value of money is not falling, it just means the value of these currencies are all falling simultaneously (like an ill equipped international school of bungee-jumping).

 

And still inflation is not yet so intensely evident. Why? Because of deflation in so many market sectors due simply to the generally failing economy. There is no scope to increase prices of any kind of goods and services which folk feel they can, if need be, do without (because the market is so soft, disposable income so thin, without they will do).

 I did not sign-off for this maybe but categorically my kids did not in any way and so if you are born into debt that is indentured servitude or, put it another-way, slavery; TAX SLAVERY! And so it is. We are the HUMAN-TAX-HERD and this place we foolishly thought of as being 'our country' is nothing of the sort. It is a giant TAX-FARM. 

Who the beneficial owners are is not so clear - I say "follow the money". But our 'democratically elected' squad of muppits are just a foil of fake accountability and their boundless army of public sector money eaters just give them a virtually guaranteed mandate. Belief in the necessity of 'The State' (of any kind or form) is the most persistent and dangerous superstitious illusion of which I am now thankfully utterly free.

Why We Should Keep Our Bank Cheque Books

Cheques are a powerful tool.  They enable 'people', non-banking enteritis or non-states, to 'create' money - just on the power the note/cheque promises to fulfil.  If someone you trust enough offers you a 'post-dated' cheque you prospectively will accept it; if that is in your interest.  This could be done with a simple letter - effectively a promissory note - but with a cheque the simple mechanism is in place to easily realise the money - pay in into your bank and draw cash - whenever the date and payee name is valid.

In theory people could use trusted 'open' cheques (with no payee named and maybe undated) to trade and barter without paying the cheque into a bank, just so long as the cheque's issuer is trusted by each party who in turn accept it (effectively a demand promissory note). This indeed once happened with counter-signed Banker's Drafts, they would often change hands until banks started to refuse to accept the counter signing as valid (on grounds of fraud prevention) and now do not issue drafts at all.

If the next step of government is to remove 'cash' from society and use various auditable and identifiable means of electronic payment devices in its place, that is all fine-and-dandy apart from for the black economy - transactions that are done 'for cash'.

With the advent of 'digital cash' what will replace paper-money/cash in the black economy?  Gold?  Bags of dope?  Signed cheques from enteritis who have an established creditworthiness (trust) in the public mind?

Call me suspicious because I do suspect there is an underside to this motion: to end the use of cheques. And I suspect my synopsis above is not so far from that truth; that it is all about making people find tax-avoidance progressively harder to carry-out. (and bank cashless-transaction charges no doubt).

See: Promissory note - From Wikipedia

See: Bills of Exchange Act 1882

An example of a 'trusted open note/cheque' would be shopping vouchers for say Tesco or Waitrose, postage stamps, etc. I would accept a few of those right now.

But we can only replace cheques if we still are 'allowed' - by the state - to have cash! 
See: Is a cashless society on the cards?

On the other hand; the people will do much better to revert to our own form of currency.  Since our money already is not actually issued by government at all; it is all raised through the banking system and is 'taxed' therefore by interest charges and inflation (a 'tax' that goes directly to the issuing bank).

Gold is one option for underpinning state-free currency.  Any number of trusted gold investment companies can sell paper notes (cash) which can be simply exchanged for real-gold - just like the old days - you can pay me with those!

But the gold market is still vulnerable to manipulation since the self-same bankers who create the money today also keep their wealth in gold and control the gold market.

Paper promise notes could replace this that simply represent one hour of work.  A Doctor may charge ten units for one hour of medical advice, a night watchman may charge half a unit per hour for sitting keeping an eye open.

An employer will pay staff with notes issued by a trusted issuer of notes that most people and companies will accept.

That is really what we all have for sale and by what everything is represented; human effort.  Be it making something and getting it to the store or digging minerals from your land.  All boils down to human effort.

IMF top job mind games

How about Saif al-Islam Gaddaf (son of the bad one) for the IMF job?

He is good with money; Libya has 141 tons of gold, worth USD 7 billion, sitting in (or near) their independent central bank.  The Libyan Investment Authority, his baby, is said to be worth £50-60bn.  He has a PhD from the LSE (honorary I think $£$£) .  At one point or another he has been 'in bed' with Nicolas Sarkozy, Condoleezza Rice and knows his way around the royal family, Blair (remember him?), Mandy and the Rothschild family - he was pals with Nathaniel.

His first big sin is not towing the USD line by hinting Libya would like to sell oil for gold and dump the USD. 

His lady friend has often been reported to be ultra-'glamorous' Israeli actor Orly Weinerman - and 'Mustard' agent no doubt. 

So he is no fool but I guess he will not be offered the job because;
1. of who his daddy is and
2. because he is not a lackey to the agenda of debt-based central banks, global governance and the drive towards a 'new world order'.

Joking apart.  I think any suggestion that Machiavellian-Mandy or Bilous-Brown could be seriously considered for the role of IMF big cheese is in the same vein as was the disgusting concept Baloney-Blair may have become Supremo No1 of the European Soviet Union.

The idea is to think of the most vile individual who could be parachuted into this throne of anti-democracy - make everyone fume with rage - and then pop some unknown toady into the role after which we will all go back to sleep without a care in the world.

We are their tax-slaves.

The banking crash was devised. How could it not be - these people who lend massive sums to major banks, who have the money to break and then bail-out nations, are not fools.

Unlimited short term funds were made unrestrictedly available to banks in the UK, Europe, the US and elsewhere .

Rather than banks pass the opportunity to make profit from this abundance, any lending opportunity was taken; especially of-cause via packages of sub-prime debt from the US. A feeding frenzy ensued.

When, after several years and clear warnings aplenty, the international financiers pulled the plug on this trade, refusing to provide further 'rolling' short-term loans on the banks long-term liabilities. The outcome was that we see today. Stitched-up.

Our governments could have said these short term loans would not be paid, but mixed in with this debt was money from depositors of all sorts. Too many innocents would be ruined if the unravelling was not possible and immediate. Our banking and finance industry would be ruined forever. The UK economy, as we know it, would be dead.

And the government guarantee of banks is binding - the tax payers must foot the bill. That is the deal - hindsight about mixed banking does not wash. The only opportunity of escape from atonement to the liability would be default or to prove the international lenders deliberately caused the situation to occur or were wilfully negligent.

So it is the same international lenders who provide the 'bailout' funds now, just today underwritten by the tax payers, as provided the excessive and irresponsible liquidity that caused and fuelled the situation from the outset.

We are their tax-slaves. The fools we think can run our nation states, at best, have been played like a fiddle or, more probably, are complicit in the crime.

But of-cause every cloud does have a silver-lining. Normally this onerous level of national debt has been brought-about by vast and destructive war. History provides evidence that the self-same forces of international finance are the ones who previously caused these wars, provoked to produce the same outcome - interest on national debt.

Maybe dear Tony and Gordon are to be heralded as national heroes; saving us all the unpleasantness of war and just saddling us with the resulting national debt instead. Great.

From The Horse's Mouth?

'Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of the government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers.

These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.'

Incorrectly attributed to Montagu Norman