Well, it was only a matter of time. Governments worldwide are in financial trouble – casting far and wide for a new bag of financial tricks with which to keep them in power – and to avoid egg-throwing or worse by increasingly hostile citizens.
The following headline is just the beginning.
Middle class professionals such as doctors, dentists, lawyers in tax evasion crackdown
I don’t think anyone can have not noticed the irony explicit in the sudden chilling in so much of the world – while in the midst of so-called global warming.
I take delight in this reality – precisely because it shows the limits of human understanding regarding the weather. And more to the point, it exposes those politiscientists and their camp followers who have been trying to hoodwink us into allowing the state to tax us even more – in response to doomsday scenarios about the weather.
Right from the beginning I was a global warming skeptic. Not just because I believed such overreaching predictions were unreliable, but because of the political connections with the concept.
You see, I have one overriding rule when considering such predictions: does the government have anything to do with this? Does it have anything to gain? Is there a political element to this “science”.
And when you look at global warming (or climate change as it’s become known, probably since some in that camp feared global warming may not eventuate!), it not difficult to discern the hand of politicians and their lackeys – scientists who are paid by politicians.
In other words, don’t trust any scientist whose pay check comes from the state!
Common wisdom is everywhere – as people from all over the planet are debunking the global warming theory as “nuts” – as they try to cope with the unexpected freeze – even in Florida!!!!
We’ve all grown up with the stuff. We can hardly imagine it not working, or not being accepted. We believe in it because everyone else believes in it.
I’m talking about paper (fiat) money – as issued by governments around the world.
Yesterday, at a local bar, I got into a discussion with a guy on the potential for severe devaluation of our various paper monies – not just the USD, but the GBP and EUR also. As a counter to this trend I suggested treating gold or silver as money and converting at least 50% of one’s liquid cash savings into one or both of these precious metals.
The answer I received was interesting. He said, “But how can you trust those who would hold your gold?” And that lead to further discourse on the subject.
I explained that any reputable gold repository is like a vault, and is storing gold/silver for its clients. Of course it is possible that such a vault “could” be run by crooks – who disappear with all the metal, but highly unlikely due to reputation built up over time. I also explained that one could take personal delivery and store it at home – with the necessary security safeguards.
On the other hand, default by a bank in handing over your savings is much more likely – not because the bank manager is dishonest, or that the bank is actually a mafia-front, but because of the essentially fraudulent nature of banking itself, the way it works currently.
Our whole money system is based on fractional reserve banking, which means that a bank can actually grant access to $100 to two different people – at the same time. And if they both came to claim that money simultaneously then the bank would not be able to provide the funds.
When a majority of depositors rush to the bank to withdraw all their funds it’s called a “bank run”. And the interesting thing is that any and every bank would fail if that were to happen – because banks never have enough money to satisfy all funds-holders.
Simply put, fractional reserve banking means a bank can take in a $100 deposit and lend out 90% of that ($90) to a borrower. Now both the depositor and borrow have access to the original $100 – but their combined claims equal $190. In other words – $100 in and $190 out.
The only way this would not happen is if the depositor signed a contract saying he would not take out his funds for say 12 months – and the corresponding loan was made for not more than 12 months. That way, the locking in of the original $100 would make the loan of $100 possible – and only one person would have access to that $100 during the 12 month period – the borrower.
But that does not happen. Banks lend out the funds from current accounts – not just contractually-fixed term deposits. And when a loan from one bank is deposited in another bank – it starts the whole process over again, creating money out of thin air.
So the difference between a vault holding gold or silver, and a bank holding paper fiat money is that the vault cannot lend out your gold, or create more gold out of thin air.
A bank, under the fractional reserve banking system, has no such “restrictions”.
So the answer is clear. In times of economic uncertainty, where fiat money is being debased by governments creating more and more of the stuff – the only real “flight to safety” is to that which cannot be created and inflated: gold and silver.
If you want to preserve what you have, then you need to start re-thinking your definition of money – fast!
One thing which has affected “offshore” more than anything else in recent times is the changes wrought after 9/11. Immediately after that event there were calls to close down offshore centres, in order to stop so called “money laundering”.
The “war on terror” that resulted has had many unfortunate by-products – the main one being an brutal attack on freedoms “at home”. This is justified by the “we are at war!” mantra, which always gives governments the excuse to clamp down its own citizens freedom of action, and even freedom of thought.
Like most government programmes, this bogus war on terror is a huge failure – for not even after all these years can any successes by attributed to it. But that’s not its purpose anyway – more like the means of simply accumulating and exercising more government power.
The one question that can never be addressed in “polite company” is the one which asks: “Why do Muslim extremists want to attack us?”. The official line is they attack us because they hate our freedoms (fast-disappearing freedoms!).
That’s bunkum of course, as anyone who gives some serious thought to this subject will soon discover.
The simple answer is contained in the USA’s assertion that it is “at war”. And Glenn Greenwald explains all this in an eminently logical and rational manner in his essay: More Cause & Effect in Our Ever-Expanding War
P.S. As an addendum, it’s worth reading Pat Buchanan’s essay: Why Are They At War With Us?
Ever since 9/11 we have been bombarded with the silly notion that the US was attacked because “the enemy hates our freedoms”. That was and still is the official line.
The first problem with that analysis is that America is fast losing its freedoms and will soon not have enough freedom to “hate”!
The second problem is that freer countries exist – which are not targets of terrorist attacks – and their existence begs the question “why not?”.
One such freer country, that is often overlooked because it is not in the news every night, is Switzerland. And this essay by Paul Green goes a long way to explaining why.
All the pundits have their New Year “predictions”, and you are excused if you find such prognostications confusing and contradictory. Yes, we live in the middle of the “information revolution”. Trouble is, so much of that information is useless or even false – and it requires constant diligence and hard mental effort to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
Fundamentally I’m aligned with the idea that the “worst is yet to come” economically, as the essential problems have not gone away, but got worse. All the talk about “reform” in the USA, following the various defaults and collapses have not yet yielded one serious reform. Only “talk” of such.
So I tend to look elsewhere for intelligent commentary – commentary based on an understanding of what is really happening.
One such commentator – from the “gold’ community – is Jim Willie, publisher of the Hat Trick Letter. His latest thoughts on what is possible in 2010 are contained in his recent essay: 2010: Giant Gathering Storm Clouds
You may not agree with everything (or anything) he says, but he has been right in his analysis of the gold market to date. And I would take his insights over those of the BBCs, FOXs and CNNs of this world anytime.
At the very least his essay, and the possible scenarios it discloses, will make you think. And maybe act.
I’ve been anti-war for a long time now. I realise how war bolsters and boosts the power of the state. I understand how war is the enemy of freedom – and how it is used to crush the human spirit. I know that war is driven by the desire to profit from war, and the desire to keep the masses under control.
And now it would appear that this understanding is getting through even to veterans.
So says Marc Faber, in this article from India’s Business Standard.
We hear a lot about “diplomacy” these days. It’s what the USA and EU are conducting with Iran – that is until the deadline runs out. It’s what the big countries are always doing, when dealing with smaller, less powerful ones.
But this word “diplomacy” has been redefined. My online dictionary defines the word as: The art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way. And again as: The profession, activity or skill of managing international relations.
So it comes as a surprise to realise that the diplomacy our “dear leaders” engage in is far removed from the above definitions – more like strong-arming, and even clandestine war-making.
Take the “diplomacy” being offered Iran – with regard to its nuclear programme. Essentially it’s this: move a good portion of your nuclear fuel outside your country and we’ll provide you with higher grade processed uranium later.
Iran balked at this and suggested they swap such fuel in smaller chunks and used a third country (Turkey) as repository. However, the West’s diplomacy was not that flexible and in effect they said, “Accept the deal offered to you or face harsh sanctions”.
Now, in the language of war even sanctions are considered a form of diplomacy. In fact anything short of actually dropping bombs is considered as diplomacy.
I beg to differ. I consider sanctions as a provocation to war. And in order to illustrate my point consider this: if America was to be threatened with sanctions from the Arab oil producers, and the sanctions were to be backed by force, do you not think the USA would take umbrage at this form of “diplomacy” and likely consider it grounds for starting a war? You betcha!
Here’s another example. Right now, a year after Operation Cast Lead by Israel in Gaza, the Gazans are still living under a siege.
Now in my book a siege is an act of war. To militarily prevent people and goods from being able to move in and out of the tiny country is tantamount to creating a prison. And don’t forget, in times past a siege was always considered an instrument of war. If you wanted to quell your enemies who were holed up in a castle, and you were unable to blast open the castle gate, then the next best option was simply to sit there and prevent the movement of people and goods either in or out, and wait until they starved or surrendered. A siege. A strategy of war.
But what really sticks in my throat is that when the hapless residents of Gaza attempt to fight back against this act of war, they are called terrorists.
This is the nature of diplomacy in 2010 and beyond – the continuing expansion of war (in all its guises) as a means of forcing compliance on recalcitrant members of the earth club.
All this is bad news for freedom at “home” too. To have the fake Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama, declare that peace is the waging of war to maintain security, is straight out of my dog-eared copy of 1984. And provides yet another reason to consider such leaders, and the fascist/socialist state mechanisms they control, as true enemies of the people.
This quote from an article by Bruce Schneier is definitely worth repeating:
“Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country’s way of life; it’s only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we’re doing the terrorists’ job for them.”
I could not have put it better myself.
