1. Governments always had the right to mint their coins and print their notes
2. In 1694, the Bank of England was established to lend the then King the first national debt at 8%; why was the King so naive, one has to ask
3. Banks have gradually virtually replaced the interest-free money of governments (Cash) by interest-bearing Credit
4. the national debt will never be paid back; but interest payments come in regularly to those who know about the issuance of national debt bonds and can afford to buy them
5. by continuously increasing the need to pay more and more interest, the economy acquires an artificial pace and speed
6. it is effectively a deep betrayal of the taxpayer who is made to believe that his taxes are the income of the state, when, in fact,

• taxes are only a share of the income of the State
• borrowing is the other source of income that could be entirely be replaced by governments printing their own money.

The argument that ‘printing money’ means creating ‘inflation’, is not accurate, since there are two kinds of inflation to consider:

1. price inflation
2. monetary inflation, i.e. the increase of the money supply.

The wise way would be to reduce the share of Credit in the money supply and to watch the Cash : Credit ratio go towards 50/50, as it was before WWII.

Here’s the visualisation of the US National Debt.

While he doesn’t answer the questions particularly well, at least the gist of what he’s saying is

• that money is created from nothing and sold for “interest”
• that the Fed didn’t solve the ‘crisis’ in 2008
• that the American people were lied to.

Its author is an entrpreneur who is dedicated to promoting the Austrian School of economics based on F A Hayek, which makes me somewhat sigh. For they ‘forget’ about the role of the state and think they can leave everything to’the market’…

Still, they do know about the difference between Cash and Credit and the devastating effect of the public debt…

• the EU controls its member countries
• the IMF controls the rest of the world
• both use public debts as their medium of control.

The video spells out how ‘all things political’ are happening from, by, through and with ‘the banks’, including the ‘Banco Vaticano’.

Here is Part 2. There is a total of eleven videos in this series.

Central banks create “money” from thin air, call it quantitative easing, sell it as “public debts” or “treasury bonds” to get interest payments, and people are in awe of fancy papers and words they don’t understand.

Banks do the same, while talking about “financial products”…

And governments? They play along and betray their tax payers. That’s why the Treasury gets staffed with Bilderberg attendees.

Institutions live longer than people. They follow the money to employ people. In 1694, the Bank of England was the second central bank after the Swedish Rijksbank 30 years earlier…

Same circus, different clowns!…

However, his quote “Zero interest rate represents the most serious mispricing of money. It does not contribute to producing the savings industry requires for recovery.” indicates that he sees “money” only as a product.

I refer to his article here mainly to illustrate the “games” central bankers play

• with governments – through “government bonds“
• the value of money – through “freshly created paper money“
• the price of gold and silver – through price suppression schemes that GATA has been pointing out for years.

Alasdair Macleod predicts the “death” of money, by comparing with history in the 18th century. I shall not join him in predictions. But I do hope that the current trends will NOT continue!

Dear Bank of England,

For Christmas, it would REALLY be nice if ALL of your employees were invited to remember how you were created in 1694: the Bank of England Act foresaw a punishment for TRADING, to avoid the SUPPRESSION of Their Majesties’ subjects, at TREBLE the value of the trade. See http://bit.ly/fgU3Ps

Hence my biggest wish is that you stop selling ‘bonds’ or any other papers or currencies to the Treasury as “public debt”, only for us the taxpayers to pay interest every year, in every budget, no matter who’s in government.

My next biggest wish is that you stop listening to the Fed, the IMF and any other American economists or bankers. Think your own thoughts! And think about what is good for the people in the UK and not just the global financial elite. Could you please put your allegiance where it is supposed to be, and not with whoever wines and dines you best?

And then I do wish that you supervise all banks propoerly, for self-regulation does NOT work. With the internet it’s easy now. Get proper statistics together! Just as everybody gets hit and hurt when ZERO is reached in an account, so please hit and hurt your fellow bank(st)ers:

• when there is too much Credit and not enough Cash in the money supply
• when short, medium AND long-term inflation figures become unacceptable
• when banks get bailed out WITHOUT victims of financial exploitation and legal oppression being compensated for white collar crimes committed by people in your institutions.

What a lovely 2011 it would become!!!…

Yours gratefully in advance,

Sabine

Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies
Web Publisher, Victims Unite!

I found your letter to Mr X so interesting that I published it on http://publicdebts.org.uk

As a mathematician and system analyst who used to diagnose high energy physics software at CERN, I trust my logic and analysis. Hence I would like to ask:

1.     How much of the capital of the National Debt is paid annually?

a.     Where are the statistics?

b.     Who determines the amount or percentage?

2.     What is the time span that is considered for ‘spreading across generations’?

3.     I do find the logic interesting that the National Debt is used for a ‘more stable the tax system’.

a.     Why do taxes get changed anyhow?

b.     What do you consider “economically efficient or inefficient”?

4.     What do you or the IOBR consider a “sustainable position”?

a.     Where is the clear and measurable fiscal mandate?

b.     Is there an equally clear and measurable mandate for the National Debt?

5.     What prevents HM Treasury to increase M0 to stabilise the tax system?

6.     Why is it relevant what the IMF thinks about HM policy?

7.     Why do you think that the IMF comment about “market reaction has been positive” is proof of the Government’s strategy to be “working”?

Looking forward to your response,

Yours sincerely,

Sabine K McNeill

________________

3D Metrics, Director

Forum for Stable Currencies, Organiser and Promoter

21a Goldhurst Terrace – London NW6 3HB

T: 020 7328 3701 – M: 07968 039 141

This one is an anonymous response from public.enquiries AT hm-treasury.gov.uk and states:

The National Debt is not owed by the public, but is owed by the Government. It is not Government policy to repay the national debt completely. Governments borrow in order to spread the capital of projects across generations, so that all those who benefit from a government policy contribute towards it.

Borrowing also allows the Government to smooth its expenditures over time, allowing for a more stable tax system.

If the Government did not issue debt, then taxes would have to be constantly changed. This approach is unfeasible and economically inefficient.

I shall send an email in response to this and ask others to do the same.

Related Articles

• Could This Work to Pay Off The National Debt (socyberty.com)
• LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Don’t Blame Dems for the Debt (kitsapsun.com)
• The US National Debt Exposed (creditloan.com)
• A Global History of Debt By Region: Map from 1970-2010 (creditloan.com)