World Financial Crisis Solution?

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on December 6, 2011 at 11:22pm

Aloha Jayce,

I will tell you what I think about how to solve the "global financial crisis." I would first, elect Ron Paul president. Then I would advocate his "Restore America Now" federal budget, freezing government payrolls at 2006 levels, cutting 5 gov't dept's, bringing the troops home, and allowing for competing currencies. Competing currencies means legalising the use of gold and silver coins for distribution as, themselves, legal tender. The reasoning for this is to curb or possibly stave off hyper-inflation of prices due to a potential drop in the value of the USD federal reserve note. If, for example, gas costs $1,000 USD per gallon or 0.03 Gold coins per gallon, people would simply prefer to use the gold value as a pricing system. The need for using gold and silver coins, aside from their being the ONLY "legal tender" mentioned explicitely as such in the US Constitution, is to allow the global market to re-adjust following the current "financial crisis." If you know what the causes of the current "crisis" are, you will understand the dissatisfaction of us all with their results, and why we consider this a "crisis," and why we consider this crisis "global." Clinton left office in 1999 leaving behind a windfall multi-billion dollar budget surplus. W. Bush, following 9-11, ran this into a multi-trillion dollar debt, with interest. His tax-credits, on top of waging expensive hopeless wars, ran the US government deep into debt to the Federal Reserve. So, to collect, the "banks got bailed out, we got sold out." This occured in 2007-8 at the end of W. Bush's second term, when McCain and Obama (the two presidential contenders) shook hands at the last debate after both voting for the "bank bail-out bill." Under Obama, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, began a series of (on-going) "Quantitative Easing," resulting in easy-lending practices for broke investment banks. The Fed, essentially, bought up all its FDIC member banks, and, as interest, re-possessed the American automotive industry. They also "bailed out" (by doing easy "debt swaps" on the currency exchange rates) all the Euopean central banks that have since failed, in all the countries wherein the people have been continually rioting ever since. The Fed caused the Euro-zone economic crisis. Let that sink in a minute, because it did so intentionally. It needs to also be noted that the US Federal Reserve bank-rolls all the "black budget" of the US DOD (dep't of defense), which include everything from skunk-works Area 51 flight-tech tests to US public psy-ops to the CIA's "black sites" where POWs in the "War Against Terror" are black-bagged and abducted to to be tortured indefinately without rights to legal counsel or trial), and that is the sole reason they do not want their books exposed. They paid for all the UN-declared wars from Korea to VietNam, because their primary share-holders are the members of the CFR, who advise the US ambassadors to the UN. More importantly than only these horrific wars costing millions of American soldiers' lives are the hundreds of "off-the-books" wars waged in secret by the CIA, incl. staging the "Bay of Pigs" invasion, the overthrowing of the Shah in Iran, staging the Gulf of Tonkin incident, assassinating JFK, and yes, even staging 9-11. Who paid Bin Laden? The Fed paid Bin Laden. Who owns the Fed? The CFR owns the Fed. Who runs the CFR? John D. Rockefeller. The "NWO" is easy to dissect. It is a simple "ponzi" structure. The real debate is: what do we use as an alternative option to it, what can we substitute for it instead, that will benefit us more than serving this symbol has and does now? The answer, for many of us, is the US Constitution, which stipulates "ONLY" gold and silver may be used as legal tender. The result of this is, as Ron Paul predicts, the phasing out of fiat paper as currency. In short, the Fed would beocme irrelevant as it would be unable to compete with gold and silver in a stronger economy. Personally,

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on December 7, 2011 at 12:10am

Personally, I side with the "OWS" movement. The Fed needs to be shut down before it can do more harm. In the recently passed 2012DOD budget (the Federal Defense Authorisation Act), the Senate wrote in as "law" that any US citizen may now be targeted for drone-plane bombing assassination at any time or black-bagging to Gitmo, or another such CIA "black site" like the FEMA-built "disaster relief" camps, built above DUMBs (deep undeground military bases), in use for torturing POWs in the "war against terror" since COG (continuity of gov't) was implimented on 9-11. Since 1999 and the signing into law of the GATT treaty which created the WTO and IMF, FEMA has been pushing for a TTC (trans-texas corridor) super-highway, however Chavez has so far successfully opposed this, so the Fed, under Obama, funded the arming of Mexican drug-cartels to foment the current "narco-war" on the US border. The goal of the CFR's Fed-formated IMF is to replace the reserve currency of the world (currently their own controlled fiat paper standard, the USD) with cell-phones that can swipe credit-cards and impliment a completely digital, online economy, where the values of national currencies depend on "special drawing rights" granted to them by the IMF and world-bank. This would, of course, necessitate global social-control. Welcome to the real world. PEACE! - Jon

Comment by Mork42 on December 7, 2011 at 5:59am

Good points, especially on CFR and the way Rockefellas and the Rothschilds and the other dark dynasties have orchestrated history for their own gains. I too support OWS but I also support quite a few other groups that I will link to at the end. 

I am against Obama because he is nothing but a pawn and a puppet and a token shift towards the Left. Left and Right no longer matters because we are approaching an omega point scenario. Originally I was extremely sceptical of Ron Paul but I have now come around to him in some ways. Though he has some good policies and at least is offering substantial change, I am still concerned it may not go far enough because he is still holding to the Right of centre. 

As I understand it Paul is a Libertarian and advocates the Mises policy on economics with a return to a metal-backed system.  This could work because it would in theory provide more stability. The problem is however that it gives so much power to the holders of gold and silver. This would make China even more powerful unless the gold the US sold them is fake. When Gordon Brown was PM he sold almost all of the UK gold at a poor price following the credit crunch. It has since steadily increased so friendly states don't hold enough gold in reserve for it to be the fix we all want. 

That is why I support the Positive Money campaign that does seek to remove the power to create new money from nothing by banks. Instead they want an independent body answerable to Parliament not Government so there would be no conflicts of interest. As long as it was regulated in accordance with GDP and there was not an over-issuance of money, there would still be stability. 

Banks would also have to sign an agreement that they would lend to SMEs to a required level and they were not able to keep benefiting corporations by giving them cheap credit. Lobbying must be ended and I note that Paul does advocate hemp, so all in all he gets the thumbs up from me but I think the economic reform needs to be simplified and water tight effectively. The word I do not hear often enough is Equity and though I know someone who has developed Equitism as a political ideology, I think of it in more broad terms. I hope to start the Voice of Reason Mission n the new year, which is a political association aimed at promoting Centrism and recommending policies  without playing the political game. I am in favour of cybernetics but not Technocracy because I fear that would move even more towards a Corporate Feudalism or Neo-Communism. 

Plan appear to have been moved into place to turn the crew on society next year if needs be and I expect a lot of panic, turmoil and rash decision making. We must above all ensure that we don't lose any more of our rights and I am sure Paul will be in the running but his running mate will be an issue and I suspect he would be seen as expendable. The most important thing is for people to educate themselves and understand what is going on just in case the shit does hit the fan. 

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on December 7, 2011 at 9:55am

Aloha Jayce,

I want you to know two things: 1) I agree next year there will be a "collapse" of the "dollar bubble," and a "run" on cash itself as people overdraw until they empty their bank-accounts. It will be every multinational, every nation and every individual for themselves. Total anarchy. Which leads into the second point, I want you to know: 2) where I stand: I am opposed to the NWO, to globalism under a dictator alike in the Protocols, and to neo-fuedalism, which is ultimately what their plan for us surface dwellers results in. This doesn't leave a lot left over to be FOR instead. There are barely a handful of intellectuals now championing any causes. The rest of the intellectuals have gven up championing causes, and the rest who champion causes are not intellectuals. I can count on one hand the English-speaking open-minded public figures alive now: 1) Ron Paul; 2) Rand Paul; 3) Noam Chomsky; 4) Luke Rudowksi and 5) Julian Assange. Making that list took me fifteen minutes, and the last two are compromises. I even considered adding Ahmhed Ahmedenijhad. He speaks more sense than any Bush ever did. Obama is funded by AIPAC and Joe Biden (VP) is a self-professed "Christian" Zionist. Netenyahu is an unspeakable swine, and Ben Bernanke a conniving cunt. But if we conspire to have them hung by a world court, we fall into their trap of using them to justify establishing what they want: global government. So the question is, how do we depose globalist dictators without imposing a global government? PEACE. - Jon

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on December 7, 2011 at 10:30am

Also, I'd like to address some fallacies you presented about the concept of using gold and silver as the specie circular. First, your point about there "not being enough gold." This is completely inaccurate. There is, only slightly, more gold now than there ever was. This is sufficient to share more or less evenly between all people as an exclusively circulated form of currency. Some might have more liquid assets in this form, others less, but you would not need to "hold" gold after the current threat of hyper-inflation of the USDollar is passed, because it would not be cometing against another currency anymore, and would probably return to being the world's reserve currency standard. Now, let's say the US legalised use of gold and silver coins, and they successfully out-circulate the USDollar fed notes without there being any period of high-risk of hyper-inflation in consumer prices. The US would be "holding" the gold then; but eventually, assuming this would work, other nations would also want to switch to the use of gold and silver coins for circulation, and this is when the argument of there "not being enough" arises. This is when the US' "leading by example," to quote Dr. Ron Paul, will begin to pay off for the US. Other nations will need our gold reserves, and we will be able to trade them to other nations for their products, goods and services. As the supply of gold becomes more evenly distributed again, prices will go down to the bare minimum, allowing productivity to expand. Costs of machines and parts will drop, and labour prices escalate. This is the argument in favour of the US adopting a gold coin currency right away, exclusively addressing the argument there is "not enough" gold to go around. There is more value in less gold than in more paper. Even if every person were "Equal" and had exactly the same amount from the fixed-sum of all the planet's gold, it would still have more buying power than all the fiat paper cash the Fed can ever counterfiet and print on the US mint's presses.

Secondly, the argument that "China now holds all the gold." This is probably mostly true, regardless of where it might be stored at this point, the Fed and European central banks who were the major holders have by now transfered most of their owership of this "commodity" over to the central bank of the Communist Party of China.  India (who purchased it from the IMF around 2009) and Saudi Arabia (long-time holders) are also primary gold owners on the international market-scene. But let's say the USA, or any of the other "bailed out" European nations, wanted to "repatriate" this gold. They can't, under current laws. Not only is owning stock-piles of gold illegal for private citizens in the USA, even if one wanted to bring in the equivlanet in exchange-rate based capital, there are massive taxes and tarrifs on such transactions. Not only this, but in a house financial review committee chaired by Dr. Paul earlier this year, it was revealed that there may not be sufficient planchette mints capable of pressing the amount of gold coins that would be needed. However, if the US proves its capacity to mint gold coins, it would actually benefit China to help the US citizens to repatriate their gold. The more gold China trades back to the USA as the dollar-value exchange-rate falls, the more authority and influence the Communist Party of China will have on the US Congress, by buying gov't bonds at junk-rates, and on US corporations and their CEOs, especially investment bankers, insurance firms and stock brokerages, by buying the stocks of these private firms at the falling dollar-value rate. American citizens will prosper by having their currency returned to a solid coinage, and the Communist Party of China will prosper by being in a position of extreme leverage in negotiating the terms of the surrender of corporatist-croney "capitalism." The Chinese will happily return to us our moeny's buying power; in exchange for world peace

Comment by Mork42 on December 8, 2011 at 12:57pm

I admire your optimism Jon. I am usually the optimist but I'd be surprised if China handed gold back in return for peace. They might do so in return for assets and concessions of partnership and this is how I could see things going. I'm still not sure of a metal backed currency should be the priority but I know I am open to different suggestions at this moment. 

One of the things I've considered in the past is a 'cashless society'. This would mean that all money became digital but again the key point is in regulating the money supply but this time it would be through digital means.

Had a productive meeting with Occupy Cardiff today and I expect to be meeting up again with them soon. The movement here is much more advanced than I expected so great news all round on that front. 

Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLxiZjNA0g4

I know you support Ron Paul but did you know Bill Still was running? I'd love to see him and Ron Paul team up. 

http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act/

At the end of the day, it is stabilizing money and not allowing it to be subject to the markets to the detriment of the people. It is a tool of the people and the nation state needs to manage it, not corporations with private interests. Money is not a commodity but gold and silver are. I understand the need for a reserve but if it were digital that would not be the case although there would still need to be provisions in place to make the system work in a safe and secure manner.

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on December 8, 2011 at 2:07pm

Aloha Jayce,

word on the tip of China having additional benefits as ulterior motives for wanting to benefit from selling their gold-holdings back to the USA for our use as circulated coinage. But by buying gov't bonds and shares in privately owned (presently) US corporations (even incl. thinktanks like the CFR, AIPAC and even investment banks like stock-trade brokerages and even the Fed itself), the Communist Party of China stands to benefit a great deal from realising that THIS IS WHAT PEACE LOOKS LIKE: A GLOBAL FREE-MARKET ECONOMY. Personally, I'd rather the Chinese were our bankers than AIPAC Zionists like Bernanke, Biden and Netenyahu; but that's only my opinion.

Re. the end-game use of gold IS as savings-bank holdings ONLY, and not as circulated as coins. The use of circulating gold as coins is a necessary short-term strategy for several good reasons: 1) to curb or stave off hyper-inflation of a paper-cash (or even, later, a digital-only) global currency. 2) to redistribute the gold to a more equitable amount held by a larger sum of people and small savings-banks. 3) to serve, ultimately, as holdings-only in a network of savings-banks who can then re-issue it as collateral for a larger network of investment-banks, all operating with public "transparency."

As you say, gold is a commodity, but "money" does not necessarily need to be. The global reserve-holdings HAVE to be a solid, finite commodity. The "money" issued on-top of this does not, but it MUST be backed by such.

PEACE! - Jon

Comment by Mork42 on December 13, 2011 at 2:32pm

Aloha Jon, 

I agree with much of your assessment. There's been continued speculation over Europe and this will continue in the new year but it may be that the economy crashes once again, though I think they will draw it out over a longer period. The fear will be there consistently and this is what I can't stand because it is the artificial system that is collapsing. Perhaps anarchy would be the best thing for all because at least then the reorganization could be emergent and on our terms with equity as a priority. Stability is unlikely right now and for the foreeable future and it will have to get worse before it gets better. 

The priority is that  intellectuals do champion causes and that enough people are willing to listen so when they have the choice between Neo-Feudalism and Social Capitalism, they make the right choice. The PTB will put us in a position of crisis so we will be desperate for the normalization phase and money or the absence thereof will be one of the major factors. 

There is a need for a Global Fair Market economy imo but that is best supported by community oriented enterprise particularly in terms of the essentials for living. Free Markets only work well if there is trust and responsibility and this is no longer the case so massive changes are needed and the people must have a voice in finding and choosing the solutions.

One of the projects I have in line for next year is the Voice of Reason Mission. The idea is for an association of interested parties to make policy recommendations and scrutinize governments. It is apolitical if you like because it is centrist but will hopefully be able to tackle fundamental problems with reason and compassion in equal measure. 

I like the five people you mention as 'champions' and in comparison to the behaviours of western politicians your +1 is a fair shout. There must be more though... The Positive Money group are making progress but it is too slow. At least there are at least some politicians and other officials who show willingness to do the right thing. 

Still there must be more groups and individuals out there.

Comment by Mork42 on December 13, 2011 at 2:36pm

Have you heard of Omnius and Dr Jeff Eisen? 

http://drjeffeisen.com/2011/10/18/the-omnius-manifesto/

Anyone who describes themselves as an "enlightenment therapist" must be question but I do like elements of his philosophy.

Comment by Mork42 on December 13, 2011 at 2:46pm

There are campaigns like this one and many more besides.

http://www.freeworldcharter.org/

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page