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.

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.

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.

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.

The paradigm of the necessity of the state is false.

It would be nice to believe that our conundrums are simply the result of ineffectiveness, inefficiency and incompetence alongside of greedy capitalists taking advantage where they can.  I do not think so.

I think, opposite to the apparent shambles being the result of poor planning and management, the slow death of the global economy results from a long-term global manipulation of central banks and the currencies they issue. 

The so called 'political leaders' are bit-part patsies who are selected to go along or be destroyed.  Democracy is a hollow sham devised to give the impression these people represent the interests of the plebiscite.

The desired outcome is to drive the current human-tax-slave tax-farms known as 'nations' into every deeper integration within a series of pan-continental unions and in turn drive those unions towards a single union of global governance; an ambition referred to, by our political masters, as the 'New World Order'.

Alongside of this is the necessity to draw the variety of currencies issued by this plethora of 'nation-state' tax-farms into similar pan-continental union currencies (the EURO the AMERO the AFRO etc), then represent their international transaction with a SDR based currency and eventually supplant all with a single global unified currency.

Conspiracy or Cock-up?

If everything that goes awry at the hands of government are just more and more cock-ups, please when do we declare the whole concept of the state a busted-flush - that it is a belief as muddled, deep-rooted but as wrong as that of religion (sorry bible bashers).

Or do we accept that the degeneration of so much, when so many great minds ponder endlessly upon all, is not all accidental but deliberate and failure is core to the perpetuation of the state; at which point we should too declare it to be a busted-flush.

The paradigm of the necessity of the state is false.

Money - a mechanism of diminishing returns

If one looks at the value of the UKP, USD, EUR AUD & JPY over the last ten years against GOLD the trends are evident.

You can right click and select 'open link in new tab' to see a large version of these charts

Not only have they fallen 80% in value over that period but they have, within a ferret's whisker, all faired much the same.  The UKP and the USD have been tracking each-other since 2009 previously the UKP was tracking the EUR.

Since 2010 the JPY broke through the value of the EUR to be running closest to GOLD but still the whole basket is massively floundering against this measure.

Regardless of the notion that GOLD is the true fixed measure of value (and all currencies have been enormously depreciated against this base-line measure) the trend between the currencies shows there is little real variation (and they are all heading to hell).

The AUD has broken out a little retaining a stronger position in comparison over the last decade (decayed) but viewed over the last two decades this can be viewed as less pronounced too - just matching the JPY.

The JPY has recently been artificially weakened but this can be seen as a correction of the effect resulting from the Tsunami which appeared to cause the currency to strengthen as a result perhaps of converting overseas investments to fund reconstruction work.

I don't specifically recommend GOLD as being guaranteed to produce, over the next couple of decades, or continuance of this level of apparent growth or resistance to depreciation (though I would not mind gambling that it will).  GOLD is as vulnerable to market manipulation as the currencies undoubtedly are.  I just wish I had put my eggs into a precious basket!

I am (clearly?) illustrating that all currencies have depreciated at consistent levels with each-other and demonstrate that adjustments in this parity are, on reflection, small.

I do not agree that governments want inflation to 'stop people hoarding cash and stopping the economy'.  A public that build-up reserves of cash under their beds is improbable if the banking system pays a viable rate of interest to stimulate investment with their deposit accounts. 

I conject that inflation is driven by central banks, not directly by governments, and that it suits the producers of money that the money they produce falls in value - that is their profit.  Inflation is a form of invisible taxation.

Money is a representation of value and so cannot be measured by itself only.

If balloons all leak air over time you cannot say my red balloon is unchanged just because your blue balloon has remained the same size as mine over the same period.  Or is that all balloony!

Mirrors and Smoke: DSK reflections and a gentle roasting

The mirror is the story that DSK raped a chamber maid; a mirror because his sexual habits are clearly his known, predisposed, weakness. (No doubt all those in such positions of power have dark secrets, known before their appointments, which then can be used to control and ruin them should they start to trample upon the labyrinth).

The smoke is, once the likelihood of a set-up looked probable, a diversion must be presented for why. Certainly Sarkozy would be happy to kiss DSK adieu and even help to put him down for reasons of his own political motivation. But it goes deeper than that. After all the French knows well that Sarkozy is more pro-Americal than the Statue of Liberty.

DSK did not ‘forget’ his phone. He left his phone because he was told intelligence services were planning to arrest him and were tracking him via this phone. He subsequently called the hotel from the aircraft to ask for the phone to be sent-on and was so then found and arrested.

DSK’s sins may be many but that for which he is paying the price is more likely to do with the threat to the hegemony of US dollar he posed than spoiling Sarkozy’s election prospects.

DSK was a strong advocate of launching an IMF issued Special Drawing Rights (SDR) based currency to replace the US Dollar as the primary global means of exchange. And DSK was highly critical of US economic policy and deeply questions of the resilience behind the Dollar; especially demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve and questioning if indeed any gold actually remains in Fort Knox.

The globalist’s agenda may well include the formation of a single world currency but that does not mean that those who are enjoying the control of the US Dollar are ready for that yet or were sufficiently in control of a new global SDR based currency to be prepared to yield to that just yet.

Conjecture?  Yes.  But then so is the alleged assault and so is the notion this was politicly motivate by French national political adversaries.  So take the pieces and decide for yourself which way do they look to fit together best?

Be careful what you wish for Scotland!

Let's look at a little history.  What was Hadrian's Wall really all about?  My take is it was much more about collecting tax and preventing duty-free trade; the wall gave the Romans that control without trying to subdue a thinly dispersed population in a large, rugged and generally poor agricultural and poor mineral-resource area.

Preventing tax-free imports is not just about the lost revenue, it is also harmful to the taxed economy; the wealthy but taxed economy is undercut by those poaching the rich pickings.

So what can we learn from this about today?   An independent Scotland is likely to become a parasite on the English economy, through the undercutting of corporation tax and such strategies.   Fair game perhaps but that competition will distort the economy in the remnants of the UK - not that I particularly care but the UK government will and some business interests, who don't just take advantage, will.

This effect will be magnified if Scotland is required to take the Euro and is excluded by the UK from the pound.  Cross boarder trade will again distort markets.  Take cars for a simplistic example: would you not buy your car in Scotland if it cost less - as the Pound and Euro exchange rates fluctuate against each other, with both markets having the steering wheel on the same side, one market or other will always be the cheaper place to order a new car .  This is all about currency fluctuations.  It suits the consumer perhaps but not the manufacturers or the governments. The outcome will be to help draw the UK into the Euro.  I shall be registering a UK trading company in Scotland before independence whilst I am still allowed.

Look at defence.  Can England risk a truly independent Scotland?  Who knows what the future holds; none of us mortals nor our 'so called' political representatives that is for sure.  Yet can Scotland be considered 'independent' in any meaningful/truthful way if it does not have control of its own foreign policy, defence or currency?  I think not.

These are the sorts of reasons why Scotland continues to be held as a 'vassal' state to England. Long after the Empire was supposed to have gone Scotland remains prisoner of it's geography.

So why do so many in Scotland want to wrestle free from our grim embrace?  Because they are sick of being dictated to from London.  There is no voice for Scotland; this is no partnership of equals.  United it is not, that is hyperbole, Subjugated Kingdom is more the like.

I am English so I am not lost in some nationalistic dream for an independent Scotland; though I do think plenty of folk are.  (I don't even quite understand what 50% of Glaswegians I talk to are saying).  But I do sympathise with the animosity.  That is a logical outcome of the situation if you think it through.  That is the unjust bummer of 'democracy': the winners take all.  A minority is always subjugated.

A real United Kingdom should have been run independently of any English Parliament.  It is too farcical to pretend Westminster ran the UK with an even-hand. The UK Parliament would be on Anglesey if it was for real.

So now the endgame is about to commence for the UK.  The EU has no place for such a second tier authority within its ranks.  The EU wants to have its regions, nine in England, plus Scotland and Wales being two more, dealing directly with them.

The EU has no real desire to continue dealing with 'nation states' let alone unions of nation states, it much prefers for them to all slowly, unperceived, wither-on-the-vine; and so they will.

What possible value to the EU does a secondary union of nations offer.  None.  The EU wants to finish the UK off right away.  Scotland will be granted its faux freedom; in truth it will be no more than being an über-county-council in a 'United Soviet State of Europe' (maybe the Europe bit will be dropped in time).

Northern Ireland will be joined to the northern region of Ireland's two EU designated regions; giving that region its city and economic powerhouse.

Wales will remain part and parcel with England until the relevance of its union with England becomes forgotten and meaningless.

The last task of this phase of this Fabian campaign will be the rise of EU 'mega-regions' to occur simultaneous with the eventual silent snuffing-out of the old nation state's governments.  These mega-regions will join geographically close regions, regardless of old national boundaries, together in quasi mutual benefit.

The same pattern is to occur eventually across the world with the North American Union being the most progressed second to the EU (the proven template of the method).  The EU economic crisis is nothing less than an intentional device of this strategy offering a choice between total economic meltdown or unequivocal acceptance of deeper integration. (Such as Cyprus who will be driven to the edge of the financial cliff until they accept that Turkey, who had invaded and stolen half their country, is now to become a member of the EU without reparations or return of the land stolen).

These Unions, of old-world-order nations, will all operate under the single global governance of the UN.  That is the plan, like it or not.  The political elites and their lackeys the world over, including the media, are sold the plan as the only solution for enduring world peace and for the scientific management of the world.  If they resist they are sidelined.  If they want to get on they play the game. 

The hubbub of global-climate-warming-change being a man-made phenomenon is to help put in place the medium-term UN carbon-tax revenue system.  The global currency and banking 'crisis' to ease in a global SDR based currency unification and Tobin taxes.

I do not care much for our old nations as it happens, nor royalty or much else of the sort either. None of that is any-more than the past generation's false paradigms; which they were sold, swallowed, died for and believed in as tomorrow's majority will support the new order with similar simple allegiance and vigour.

The only lesson of history perhaps is: be careful what you wish for, be careful your wish is really your own.

notes.
Mineral Exploration and Fort Placement in Roman Britain
http://www.dibonsmith.com/roman.pdf

The State - Strangers who throw all your money into a bottomless pit

If we are on a sinking wooden boat and all we have is a captain and all that captain has is a great big hammer with a bucket full of nails; expect to hear nothing but the sound of banging, battering, clobbering, pounding, pummelling, thrashing, trouncing, walloping and whacking - in that order!

The captain will tell you this is all his men can do. But you know: the weight of all these nails is going to sink that darn boat anyway, regardless. The boat is sinking, you are on it and it is miles from land. And the funny thing is the ones who are doing all the hammering, having holed the hull in the first place, are the only ones with life-jackets on, indeed with your life-jackets on.

What are you going to do? Push those fellows with the hammer in the sea and tip their bucket of nails in with them too. I reckon with a little luck we could make it to the shore - this is, after all, a wooden boat.

Here is another thing. If you owned a money printing machine, not fake money but real money, would you ever be broke again? Only if you were really very stupid. And would you give that machine away on the agreement that you will instead pay interest for any of the money the machine printed. Only if you were very stupid again.  Or fundamentally corrupt.

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.

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

Nose on your face

One thing is for sure: the EU € EURO single currency either was or was not created by fools. The EURO member nation states do not have the economic control mechanisms to prevent the occurrence - it is a car-park on a cliff full of cars with no handbrakes!

If we generously consider the EU economists were not all blithering idiots it must have been clear to them the current situation was indeed ultimately inevitable. In other-words this path to economic failure was deliberately planned.

WHY? The objective of the EU is, and always has been, ever deeper political integration, to dismantle the national sovereignty of the nation member states and build a federal EU soviet state. The EURO was one step to that goal but did not give the EU total control of the member-state’s economies - that would have been a ‘bridge too far’ at the time of establishing the currency.

So instead a deaf-ear was turned to those who proclaimed the eventual outcome could only be economic meltdown. Not because they were not right in the assertion but because this was actually the covert intention.

I am rather taken with the following video which goes far into explaining so much of what has happened to the EU economy:



- just for fun!

The Loophole Exploited

Those who have lent excessively, to the point of apparent foolhardiness, can only have done so because they knew, however it turned-out, their bad investments were ultimately indemnified and so protected.

But that was not the game. Not concerned with making bad investments that cause financial collapse and just getting their money back, instead the aim has been to ramp-up such debt and then lend the selfsame sums again required to fund the bailouts themselves. So in doing they create enormous and indefinite national debts held by the bailout nations that can afford to pay and pay such interest as demanded. The people of the EU become tax-slaves to the international bankers.


The loophole exploited is the promise that sovereign states will act as lenders of last resort and behind them the resolve of the member-states of the EU to rally behind the EURO.

This is a win-win; for the bankers, who funded these debts and subsequently will lend the bailouts too, and for the EU/EURO which can only be improbably left to a horrific death or become politically fully incarnated as a result.