Courageous Canada Targets Russia — Washington Says Jump — Ottawa Asks How High?

Ref:  http://russia-insider.com/en/courageous-canada-targets-russia-washington-says-jump-ottawa-asks-how-high/ri21536?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=0d131b6f94&mc_eid=73d17c787b

     Your site provides a considerable amount of historical information on the “money question” but concentrates wrongly on the question of interest charges made by the credit creation of private bankers with the usual misguided recommendation that “private money creation” should be vested in the hands of sovereign governments. The fatal flaw in this recommendation is that it would place the power of money, or credit, creation as a centralized power resident in the hands of the State. This proviso is one of the main points of the Communist Manifesto and state control of credit was exercised also by the fascist States. Credit is the means of activating real productive resources and State control of its issue and cancellation confers centralized control over the entire real credit, i.e., productive capacity, of a nation. This control combined with a mis-conceived policy of “full-employment”, which you clearly have endorsed, is a certain recipe for tyranny.

     The purpose of an economy is not to create work, but rather to create required or desired goods and services as efficiently as possible--with maximal elimination of human effort and as little inconvenience as possible for all. In the days of Merry England the people enjoyed approximately 150 holidays per annum and were required to work only a few weeks of the year to provide their basic needs for living. It is predicted that within about twenty years approximately fifty per cent. of American jobs will be entirely eliminated by automation and artificial intelligence. This is an amazing and magnificent achievement for which we all should be eternally grateful. The problem, however, is to ensure that this superfluity of consumer wealth reaches the entire society of consumers--and it is to the question of distribution and not production that we must turn our attention.

     Labour is increasingly being displaced by technology and the justification for accessing goods and services must be increasingly divorced from “work”. There is nothing “moral” or “edifying” in engaging in increasingly fabricated, inefficient, useless, and destructive activity (such as war production) in order to maintain a slave State through an idolatrous worship of work for its own sake.

     None of the political parties offer a viable solution to our economic and social problems. In order to maintain government services, the Socialists are submerging us evermore in debt to the Banking system through deficit borrowing. The Conservatives would cut back on the deficit thereby to restrict the flow of new credit, leaving costs and prices hanging unliquidated in mid-air, thereby permitting the banking system to foreclose on the assets of the community.

     The Left and the Right are both subservient to the faulty, parasitical and dysfunctional Banking System. We are offered the fraudulent choice of being “shot or boiled in oil.” A balanced budget is a mathematical impossibility because the price-system itself is non- self-liquidating: It generates financial costs and prices at an ever increasing rate of flow than it simultaneously generates consumer incomes--increasingly as labour is rapidly replaced by technology as a factor of production.

     An additional and increasing flow of effective purchasing-power is absolutely essential to maintain a functioning economy. That flow is provided today, when and to the extent that it is provided, by new money in the form of bank credit (i.e., debt) which allows past production to be purchased, but only by an increasing mortgage on future production. This allows producers after a fashion to recover their financial costs at point of retail sale. However, it does not liquidate these costs of production at point of sale because it merely carries them forward as a charge against future production.

     The physical costs of production are fully met when the product emerges finished from the production line, at which time we pay financially once for these goods but are then required to pay for them a second time in the price of future goods. The problem, and it is a fatal problem, arises from the fraudulent claim of the banking system to actual ownership of the credit which they issue to monetize the community’s real wealth--upon which they will foreclose in the case of loan default, although they have played no role in the actual creation of these assets.

     This is legalized counterfeiting--legalized because incompetent or corrupt governments issue a Charter to the banks to hold a monopoly of credit issue--which they issue only as debt owing to themselves.

     The new money required to bridge the spiralling deficiency of consumer purchasing-power relative to final consumer prices absolutely must be issued--but not as debt owing the the Banking system. It should be drawn from a properly constituted National Credit Account (being an actuarially determined, and regular revised, valuation of the physical real capital of the nation) and paid out to all citizens as consumer credits, without being accounted as debt, in the form of universal National (Consumer) Dividends and payments to retailers enabling them to sell at reducing, i.e., Compensated (Retail) Prices.

     The physical costs of production are fully acquitted when it is completed and ready for use or consumption. There should exist no residual financial debt. The financial system should faithfully reflect this irrefutable fact. There should be no need for consumer debt whatsoever. Financial ignorance is the Achilles Heel of the Conservative movement and accounts for its continuing inability to mount anything but ineffective rear-guard action against the steady growth of power in the hands of the State--under governments of all political labels.
New: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-RwUvgtYN0 (“What is Social Credit?)

Letter Penned Prince Charles Sparks Controversy
Gilad Atzmon’s Thoughts on Balfour’s ‘Declaration’