stock here: comment at ZH, oddly long, and does not link to a source or blog, so what organization has made this comment and why?
Their main premise is below….which makes me think that it is a great lie to obscure a more dark and awful truth…..
===============================================
America is being run by an international elite representing old money and banking interests.
American money and power is being used to serve their interests.
==================================================
17 hours ago(Edited)removelink
Why do the Americans do so many stupid things that are not in their interests?
We need to identify the stupid things they do, and work out whose interests they serve.
1) Creating an open globalised world, where they went into decline and China was the main beneficiary
2) Creating a central bank whose shareholders are the big US banks
3) Wrecking their economy with one financial crisis after another
4) Endless wars that never benefit the American people
That’ll do for a start.
America is being run by an international elite representing old money and banking interests.
American money and power is being used to serve their interests.
We never did ask the obvious question.
Why did China do so well in an open, globalised world?
All the cards were stacked in China’s favour in an open, globalised world, which the Americans created with the Washington Consensus.
Maximising profit is all about reducing costs.
China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had all the advantages in an open globalised world.
Western companies couldn’t wait to off-shore to low cost China, where they could make higher profits.
Western businesses tried cutting costs here, but could never get down to Chinese levels and they needed to off-shore to maximise profit.
They gave away decades of Western design and development knowledge in technology transfer agreements.
China was a new, fast growing economy compared to the mature, slow growing economies of the West.
Investors would be able to achieve better returns in the new, fast growing Chinese economy and this is where the money headed.
US investors love China and know it’s the best place to make real money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaELQS5kTso&t=727s
George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos ….
These are the rules of the game they never understood.
Now we do understand the rules we can see why they have done so badly.
The cards were stacked against them.
The Americans are completely clueless
They have no idea what they are actually doing.
They are always whining about the FED.
They created a central bank whose shareholders are the big US banks.
What did they think was going to happen?
They wreck their economy with one financial crisis after another
They never work out what went wrong and make the same mistakes over and over again.
It’s hard to believe, but it was the Americans that worked out the fundamental flaw in free market theory in the 1930s.
The Wall Street Crash and Great Depression focussed minds in the US.
The free market thinkers of the 1930s realised it was the bank’s ability to create money that had upset their free market theories.
Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers ability to create money.
“Simons envisioned banks that would have a choice of two types of holdings: long-term bonds and cash. Simultaneously, they would hold increased reserves, up to 100%. Simons saw this as beneficial in that its ultimate consequences would be the prevention of “bank-financed inflation of securities and real estate” through the leveraged creation of secondary forms of money.”
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Henry_Calvert_Simons
That was the problem with free market theory then, and it’s the same now.
They had been borrowing money from banks to purchase assets and pump up asset prices.
When those inflated asset prices collapsed, so did the banking system.
The IMF re-visited the Chicago plan after 2008.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf
Free market theory has always been fundamentally flawed.
The bank’s ability to create money has always been the problem.
This is where it all goes wrong.
Endless wars that never benefit the American people
They benefit US companies whose profits get sucked out by their shareholders.
play_arrow4play_arrow
Sound of the Suburbs
17 hours ago(Edited)removelink
Why did they want to roll out one economics and ideology out globally?
Let’s have a look at how the economics is rigged.
Why is neoclassical economics like that?
The object of the exercise was to make up an economics that underpinned liberalism and hid the discoveries of the classical economists.
Richard Werner gives us the technical explanation.
“…… neo-classical economics, as dominant today, has used the deductive methodology: Untested axioms and unrealistic assumptions are the basis for the formulation of theoretical dream worlds that are used to present particular ‘results’. As discussed in Werner (2005), this methodology is particularly suited to deriving and justifying preconceived ideas and conclusions, through a process of working backwards from the desired ‘conclusions’, to establish the kind of model that can deliver them, and then formulating the kind of framework that could justify this model by choosing suitable assumptions and ‘axioms’. In other words, the deductive methodology is uniquely suited for manipulation by being based on axioms and assumptions that can be picked at will in order to obtain pre-determined desired outcomes and justify favoured policy recommendations. It can be said that the deductive methodology is useful for producing arguments that may give a scientific appearance, but are merely presenting a pre-determined opinion.”
You’ve got this old ideology you want to underpin with something that looks like economics.
This is just what you need.
The classical economists looked at the world around them.
There was no benefits system in those days and the only people that didn’t do anything economically productive existed at the top of society.
“The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers.” Adam Smith
The classical economists identified the constructive “earned” income and the parasitic “unearned” income.
Most of the people at the top lived off the parasitic “unearned” income and they now had a big problem.
This problem was solved with neoclassical economics, which hides this distinction.
Any serious attempt to study the capitalist system reveals many at the top don’t create any wealth; they just extract money from the system.
They confused making money with creating wealth.
Neoclassical economics was born.
Capitalism has two sides, a productive side and a parasitic side.
Neoclassical economics equates making money with creating wealth to hide this.
The real wealth creators are those at the bottom producing new goods and services in the economy.
Neoclassical economics turns everything upside down, preserving the old order.
Those at the top have always preferred the easy money of “unearned” income and have a natural aversion to doing anything economically productive.
They don’t like us knowing what real wealth creation is, as they like the parasitic side of capitalism.
Equate making money with creating wealth and rentier activity just disappears.
Rentiers make money, they don’t create wealth.
Banks create money, not wealth.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
You always get into trouble with banking when using neoclassical economics.
Global policymakers are making the same mistakes as the US in the 1920s.
Not knowing what wealth and wealth creation really are, the neoclassical economist associates rising asset prices with wealth creation.
Bank credit is used to purchase assets and pump up asset prices, and things go horribly wrong in the banking system.
You need to know what wealth really is to use the banking system effectively.
Policymakers trained in neoclassical economics don’t.
Banks – What is the idea?
The idea is that banks lend into business and industry to increase the productive capacity of the economy.
Business and industry don’t have to wait until they have the money to expand.
They can borrow the money and use it to expand today, and then pay that money back in the future.
The economy can then grow more rapidly than it would without banks.
Debt grows with GDP and there are no problems
The banks create money and use it to create real wealth.
Banks are there to serve the real economy where the real wealth creation takes place.
This is the secret of stable, sustainable growth.
The economics is rigged to benefit old money and banker interests.
Bankers don’t make that much money when they are kept on the straight and narrow doing what they should do.