giovedì 8 luglio 2010

Institutions attacked and burned down in Bangkok

The masses and spending 200,000 euro in one year is the limit !

Exclusive and prestigious malls, 5- star hotels, banks, government buildings, the stock exchange. These institutions were attacked and burned down in Bangkok after the bloody suppression of a demonstration that had lasted for many weeks.

The People know that greed of the Happy Few causes the wretched life of the majority.

They understand they will remain an inferior majority when they do not resort to surprising, powerful and autonomous actions.

Most mass actions are however controlled and guided by people from the establishment. Voronai Vanijaka wrote rightly in the Bangkok Post of April the 11th 2010 that “in the present struggles the new elites are making pawns of the poor and the old elites are making pawns of the middle class….”

Many people still expect that politicians and industrial bosses will bring improvement but others have lost any confidence in the good intentions of high-placed persons. They realise that the establishment will never give all people the same status (at the cost of the status of the top of society). “……. change will never start in politics, in governments or in the circles of the old or new establishments. Change has to start in the huts, the homes and the condos of the people of Thailand …… the power of the People is a force to be reckoned with.”

I was in Bangkok and visited several times the demonstrations. I saw people full of hope that a better future was about to come. But then the army used excessive violence against these friendly and peaceful demonstrators. More than hundred masspeople died and many more were seriously wounded.
In the days after the onslaught the elite lost control over the masses. Then the masses proved they understood that money controlled by the greedy is the real cause of much misery. They attacked the symbols and the playground of the Happy Few.

The top is driven by money – in the first place for their own pocket. When they cannot spend their money because their exclusive gadgets are not made anymore and the exclusive elitist places that are closed for common citizens do not exist anymore the world will change.
But that will only occur when the idea that all people should have the same status will replace money as the driving force to propel humanity into a new era.

And the first step in that direction can be summarised by one sentence:

To spend 200,000 euro in one year should be the limit for anyone!

Joost van Steenis

What’s NEW (,htm) contains items related to the idea that exclusive extravagancy of the Few impedes the development of humanity.

For background information see “Down with any Elite” or read my books.
My last book FROM CHAOS TO CHANGE can be downloaded for free from
You get the paperback edition by sending 10 euro by paypal to

You regularly can receive my new articles by sending an empty email with the subject subscribe to

A populist plan revising the economic system

A populist plan revising the economic system

Here is a populist plan revising the economic system of this republic to replace Rothschild usury and debt money with Social Credit and debt-free treasury money. The market system, purged of usury will remain. while keeping Honest government funded by printing its own money and taxation will be there if the people want it. The rewards of intelligence and work and creativity in providing good things for all people will be less obstructed and less limited than at any other time in recorded history.

The private credit monopoly is a criminal conspiracy with traitors in government and the courts. Repudiation is the only course, along with compensation for damages and redistribution of their ill-gotten wealth. Remember, that fraud vitiates all contracts -- and executive orders, legislation and decisions from the Supreme Court are null and void if made by a conspiracy intending sabotage. It would be best if all nations and individuals repudiated debt at the same time and with replacement credit systems ready. Treasury money and social credit are the innovations that will make that possible.


Interest is tribute paid to organized crime.

We can't use a tool or get men to help us unless we pay tribute to the bankers.

The bankers don't contribute anything except turning the faucet on the monopoly of credit power they should not have at all. They are not the inventors, they are not the engineers, they are not the entrepreneurs, they are not the owners of the collateral that really backs their loans.

They are parasites who want to be not only our slave masters but also God over us.

Making monopoly and demanding a cut and tribute every time someone with a good idea for helping people wants to provide that service.

Maybe money started, as Tolstoy suggests, as an easier and cheaper way of enslaving people -- demand a tax that has to be paid in coin then spend the coins into circulation among the people -- buying their products and their assets -- and then get the coins back again as taxes to do it all over again -- but it does not have to work that way.

People can take over from kings and the kings mint and the banks of the special friends of the king -- and they can set up money that stays with the people and doesn't drain purchasing power away from them in interest payments and tax payments so the government can pay its loans.

What is done to people in Greece will be done to us. Not until the entire world rises up and destroys not the entrepreneurs, but the bankers and the banker's agents in the government who interest on ventures that they did not conceive and which they in now way have helped to succeed except by withholding credit their slice out of the profits and wages of producing people is settled.

============ ====

Social Credit has to do with who first gets the money that will be spent and on what terms do they get it. Under Social Credit the new money first appears in households, not corporations or government contractors. Social Credit dividend check will not be spent on what Congress wants to buy in exchange for votes, but rather it will be spent by households for the direct good and happiness of their families?

Interest slavery -- is the phrase that Gotfried Fetter used which converted Hitler and gave him the cause in which more than any other Germany united behind him -- the other side of Hitler of course was his opposition to Jewish power, because the Jews under Rothschild leadership represent the "interest slavery system" that leads to ruin and war.

I call it the Rothschild usury system "Debt Slavery." Under debt slavery all money is really a certificate of debt -- and it doesn't matter if the certificate is paper or gold. When you buy something you pay not only the price of labor and machines and labor and brains which is the cost of the good itself and also the tax on the selling price of the good but you also are paying the interest on the dollars that were used to buy it. Because the entrepreneur has to pay all his costs for land, labor and equipment but also make interest payments on the borrowed money, the interest cuts into both wages and profit. And this interest on money is not even necessary. We are crushed by debt and our debt, our IOUs to bankers, is the the bankers' wealth and they have used their abundant wealth to put their hired agents in every high office and high academic and research post in the land.

Betty's Classroom Report on Social Credit

Betty's Classroom Report on Social Credit

Today I am going to tell you about Social Credit.

Everybody knows that people go to work so they can get money to buy things. The things people buy are paid for with money people earn by making the things people buy. And that would be all there is to say about it if it weren't for a big problem that keeps happening.

Sometimes the good things people make on their jobs simply don't sell even though everybody knows people want those things and need those things. When this happens and selling stops the people who make things have to stop making them. Companies don't get any money when they don't sell what has been made and so they don't have enough money to pay all the people who work at the company. This causes troubles for nearly everyone.

How come there is not enough money for people to buy the things we know how to so easily make for each other?

The troubles start because some of the money that goes around and around from families to companies and back to families again gets taken away so there is not enough money being spent so everyone can keep their job and keep on spending. The big problem is the money that is taken away so it can't keep going around businesses and families doing good for people.

The reason the money goes away is that it is only loaned to people, not given to them. Families and companies have to borrow the money so they will have money to buy and sell. The people who loan the money to companies and familes give it, but then they expect it back or else they will take away the house or the companies for themselves. Sometimes the people who lend the money really want to get those companies for themselves and get the houses and start making people pay rent who live there.

If people didn't have to borrow money to get it, then there would always be enough money to buy things that people make when they go to work. There would be no problem if everybody just got together and voted to print money and send some to every family so they could spend it. Doing that is called Social Credit. With Social Credit the money does not have to be paid back.

Does everybody understand what I've said so far?

Social Credit is easy to understand and it is easy to do, but the reason why we don't get our money this way and avoid all the troubles is that very rich bad bankers can steal a lot of money from everybody when money is borrowed instead of being given to people from Social Credit.

Now there is one more thing you need to know about.

When bad bankers take away more money than they put in they stealing the things that that money could have bought for families if people used Social Credit to put in new money instead of borrowing.

The bad men don't just lend money and then get it back and then lend it again right away to someone else. If that was the way money worked then maybe money wouldn't be gone away as much and there would be enough going around for everybody to keep making things and buying things. But the bad men do something much different. What they do is called usury.

When a man wants to start a company and give people jobs to make things he goes to the usury man at a bank and borrows money from him. The usury man writes on a piece of paper that the man starting the company is to get some new money from the bank. The company is started and people get jobs and people have money to buy the things that are made. But then the money has to be paid back. For every dollar that the man starting the company borrowed, a year later he has to give back to the usury man a dollar plus a dime a nickle and some pennies; and sometimes he has to pay back with each dollar a whole quarter.

That extra money that has to be paid back for each dollar that the man owning the company borrowed is called interest. It is called interest because the extra dime and nickle and penny paid back with the dollar is what makes the usury man interested in lending to the man with the company in the first place.

So all the time people are borrowing new money that comes in but paying back the same amount of money plus more. Money is always being lost by families and companies to the bankers.

And this is what causes troubles. Because all the time the bankers have all that interest they get and families and companies are short that much for buying what is produced and keeping companies busy with everybody working. People lose their jobs. Companies go out of business. And the bankers don't want to lend money to companies because the companies don't have enough customers.

But bankers are in the business of lending money, and if people can't borrow money because the banker knows the people will never be able to earn enough to pay back each dollar with an extra dime, nickle and penny because the banker has taken out all of the money that was going around -- the banker will look elsewhere for people to lend money to. He will lend money to other countries. Or he will pay bad people to get countries angry with each other so they will start a war so that people will have to borrow money to buy guns and airplanes and ships and bombs to win the war. Then the banker can lend all of the money he took away as interest and the companies can hire people again to make the guns and bombs. The bankers will even cause other kinds of disasters if they can so they can lend their money to rebuild after the disaster. These are the kinds of troubles that happen when people get their money from borrowing it from banks rather than just agreeing that money will be printed up for free and given to each man, woman and child to spend without having to pay it back at all.

After thinking about usury and Social Credit I really hope that people will find a way to have Social Credit without usury. If people have Social Credit then companies would make enough money that they could keep everyone hired and make new things and different kinds of things and better things and everyone would have the money to buy the ones they like.

Are there any questions?

Q: How come people don't fix the problem by having Social Credit and not having money that's all borrowed and shit.

A: That's exactly what I wondered. So I looked up the word "economics" in the school encyclopedia and read what it says about what causes companies to go out of business and people to lose jobs. It didn't anything about the real reason of people having to pay interest without extra money being added so they could pay it. Instead there were two famous men who were paid by the bankers to give people different reasons why people lost their jobs and and couldn't buy things.

One man named John and another named Paul said that when companies couldn't sell that the government should spend money so companies give new jobs to people who lost their jobs. But this answer was wrong because the government had to borrow money before it could spend it, and the leak of interest later on would more than undo the spending that the government does now. And besides, the government spending what they want is not the same as the people having the money to spend it on what they want.

Another man with another wrong answer was named Milton. Milton said that the banks that make money should look at prices and if prices go up they should lend less money and if prices go down they should lend more money. Well, of course that sounds good, but of course it doesn't fix the problem of interest draining away the money people have to spend on the goods they make. Even when prices don't change, the bankers are slowly ending up taking out more dollars than they have put in. Milton didn't understand that it makes a difference if there are ten dog food companies making puppy biscuits with everybody working and selling the puppy biscuits for fifty cents a box and having only two dog food companies in business and people without jobs with the price of puppy biscuits still fifty cents for a box. Another thing that Milton said was that while the people were incapable of deciding how much money their should be, that the bankers could be trusted to just lend enough money so that prices wouldn't change. Milton didn't seem to know that bankers would want price to go down and the amount of money to go down most of the time -- because everyone owes them money and if prices go down then the money they are going to get from people paying interest will buy more for the bankers and the people will have to work harder and longer to get each dollar, dime, nickle and penny. They also like to have the amount of money going around to become less and less because then more people will have to come to the bankers to borrow more and pay back a dollar and a quarter for each dollar borrowed instead of just a dollar, a dime and a nickle.

John and Paul and Milton would not tell people that using money that is borrowed rather than money that is just made and given to people is what causes everybody's troubles. It doesn't matter if puppy biscuits are one cent a box or if they are a million dollars a box as long as people receive enough money to buy everything they can make and want to own.

To conclude this report I simply wish to say that I think Social Credit is the best way for companies and families to get the money they use and that usury is a very bad way that only does good for a few very bad people.

Teacher: Thank you, Betty. That was very nicely done. However, before you take your seat, I have a question that I would like you to try answering. Some people say that if our money were gold instead of paper or checking account money created by bank loans that prices would not go up and everything would be fine. In light of what you have learned about Social Credit, do you think that could be true?

Betty: I don't see how it could be true, Miss Shirley. To get gold one has to pay the cost of getting it out of the ground. And when people hide it away it doesn't get spent. With Social Credit the money just comes to every house without people having to do anything. With gold you would have to either get it out of the ground or borrow or buy it from the rich people who own it all, and they would want interest. To pay their debts people would not only have a harder time because money had gone away in paying interest, but because gold is so hard to get hold of to put in people's hands in the first place. The gold money would never be enough and so the bad bankers would prosper at the expense of everybody else even more with gold than without it.

Teacher: Very good. You may take you seat. Now class, it is time to put away your reading notebooks and bring out your geography textbooks.

Richard Eastman

note: Economists mentioned were John (Keynes), Paul (Samuelson), and Milton (Friedman)

Nationalism and the long road to the Caliphate

Nationalism and the long road to the Caliphate

Almost 70 years has elapsed, since the last major conflict erupted in the West, which ended in 1945. All the signs indicate peace is likely to continue, as ties between the Western nations are strengthened through various treaties, reinforcing their allegiance to a common set of values. Europe in particular, there exists is a momentum towards greater unification; the European Union (EU) has evolved from the European Economic Community (EEC) that was formed back in 1957. After the recent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has passed another milestone.

Note the pace of unity in Europe has taken into account the desire of each nation to maintain its national identity; without coercion or any form of threat or intimidation, they relinquish part of their sovereignty, for the greater good. This notion issue of pooling some national sovereignty for benefit was raised by former Conservative foreign secretary, Francis Pym, a proponent for European Union. In his book, “The Politics of Consent”, he argued national sovereignty was less about territorial or national integrity, much more about the ability of a nation to determine the welfare of its own citizen.

After the demise of the Iron Curtain, the EU has continued to expand to incorporate the former Eastern European block countries. In addition to economic benefits, such expansion ensures the old fault lines of religion and ethnicity does not cause instability, which happened after the breakup of Yugoslavia. The West ended the conflict in 1995 through the Dayton peace accord. Now, Croatia and Macedonia are set to become part of the EU, for sure, Bosnia and Serbia will follow in the future. Germany has also signed a historic peace accord with Russia, turning a new chapter as they look to end the historic animosity between the two nations.

From Napoleon to Hitler, history tells us nationalism is the fuel of nation states, and one of the primary factors for causing numerous bloody wars. Yet, the nation states of Europe, USA, Canada, Russia and others have managed to maintain close ties, and avoid conflicts. Therefore, what has changed over the last 70 years in the West? This paradoxical behaviour can be attributed to the following reasons:

  • With scientific advances, the ability to cause mutual destruction has increased significantly, making war very costly to all sides. This was recognised by the West after the First World War. Europe lamented on the mass casualties caused by the use of explosives, mustard gas, air raids, machine guns, and especially the gruesome trench battles, the most notable was the battle of the Somme. They said ‘never again’ and formed the “League of Nations” which was supposed to prevent future wars. The organisation failed, and subsequently the Second World War was ignited, which ended with the Americans dropping the Atom bomb on the Japanese cities; this finally made the point about cost of wars. No wonder, the Third World War was a cold one.
  • The experience of the great wars also propelled the West to find a solution to avert future wars; the obvious remedy was to forge unity amongst nations through establishing multilateral treaties and economic blocks. The creation of common market brings mutual economic benefit and in turn creates political stability. It generates opportunities for everyone. For example, those nation facing labour shortage, which is a crucial factor for economic growth, could access the labour force from other countries, where they may have been out of work. This in turn stimulates the local and the regional economy. Instead of fighting for spoils, the West has learnt to work together and share the benefit. Multinationals companies in someway reflect that ethos.
  • At a political level, the Western democracies have been able to create stable government that is held accountable to the masses, where the rule of law prevails; it may not be perfect, but there is no other example in the world that can rival their record of accomplishment, since the end of Second World War. This helped to create internal stability, enabling the nations to forge a common ideological outlook and unify.

It seems the West has finally managed to tame primitive nationalism. Even countries like India with many racial groups, languages and religions has been relatively successful in maintaining unity, in comparison to the more monolithic Muslim nations of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

In contrast, the Muslims nations have failed miserably, where primitive nationalism is so pervasive that they cannot unify even on nationalistic grounds. For example, the Arab League could not unify the Arabs at any level. Egypt did not think twice to abandon Arab unity and signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979; similarly, the Arab nations sided with the US forces during the Iraq war, legitimised as American ‘Jihad’ no doubt! The ordinary Kuwaitis were waving and kissing the American flag, thanking the American ‘Mujahideen’ for expelling Saddam Hussein’s army. Then collectively they imposed the brutal economic sanction on Iraq. After the removal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq split along racial and sectarian lines. The Palestinians to date are helpless, whenever the Israelis decide to slaughtered them, the entire Arab world remain spectators, issuing condemnation after condemnation.

Elsewhere in the Islamic world, its the same story, the bearded Afghanis sided with the Kafir (disbeliever) Americans, and fought the fellow Muslims of Pashtun origin (Taliban). Of course, they will argue it was the American ‘Mujahideen’ helping them against the Kafir Taliban! East Pakistan seceded to become Bangladesh, after it could no longer maintain unity with West Pakistan. The Turks and the Kurds has been fighting a similar battle for decades. Recently, the barbaric killings driven by primitive nationalism was seen in Kyrgyzstan. One can go on listing numerous other conflicts amongst Muslims propelled by nationalism and intolerance of other racial groups. This is an irony given that nationalism contradicts the Islamic teachings, which demands that Muslims live as a unified body under one ruler: the caliphate. This is challenge, how do the Muslim nations overcome these nationalistic barriers and forge unity.

There are those who are oblivious to the real world, and ignorant of the history of the Caliphate, they purport that only the Caliphate will magically being about unity and remove nationalism. This is a poor assumption, as the history of the Caliphate shows otherwise. From the very early phase, the forces of nationalism was active, the battle between Muawiyah and Ali (ra) echoed the old rivalry between the two clans of, Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya. Muawiyah probably carried nationalistic sentiment as a late convert to Islam, who saw the supremacy of Islam, linked with the ascendency of Banu Hashim over his tribe. Otherwise, he was destined to become the leader of Mecca. In addition, Ali had killed many prominent family members of the Banu Umayya during the earlier battles. Thus, most of the clans from Banu Umayya fled to Damascus, and joined Muawiyah to raise the revolt against Ali (ra) of Banu Hashim.

After the death of Ali (ra), Muawiyah and his son Yazid plotted to suppress the Banu Hashim clan; this policy led to the killing of the grandson of the Prophet at Karbala, concurrently the other prominent companions from Banu Hashim were silenced and confined to Medina. This paved the way for Banu Ummayh to dominated to dominate the Caliphate, so the Umayyad dynasty as born. Subsequently, they were succeeded by the rival Arab dynasty, the Abbasids, whose roots can be traced back to Banu Hashim.

The Arab Caliphate only produced Arab rulers, their outlook towards the non-Arab Muslims was coloured with prejudice, to the extent that non-Arab Muslims were made to pay the Jizya tax at one point that is reserved for non-Muslims. Tariq Bin Ziyad, the Berber Muslim general who conquered Spain was humiliated by the Arab Caliph of Damascus. Eventually, a costly civil war erupted between the Arab rulers and the Berbers of North Africa; otherwise, the frontiers of Islam would have reached the Scandinavian countries. The Ottomans were no different; they only produced Turkish rulers from their family, in the later phase they even gave primacy to the Turkish language over the Quranic Arabic texts.

There is no specific textual evidence that illustrates how the current Muslim nations can forge unity. One cannot cite the Prophet’s reign, as he was the de facto leader of all Muslims. Nobody could setup a rival state without giving disobedience to the Prophet; therefore, at that time disunity was not possible without committing a grievous sin or apostasy. Therefore, one can only refer to historical examples as a guide. However, are there any examples of Muslims countries unifying with the Caliphate ‘willingly’? Unfortunately, the initial fragmentation of the Caliphate increased with the passage of time. Any subsequent unification was brought through the use of force, and such methods will not work today for two reasons:

Firstly, the cost of war has increased substantially; it will be detrimental to the Muslims as a whole, the costs will outweigh the benefits.

Secondly, such unification will be short term, as the masses today are far more informed and politically aware; thus, unlikely to accept the authority of another nation.

The test of human history shows nationalism will not be eradicated, but it can be contained, as the West has done gradually over the last 70 years, and the Caliphate did in the early years. If states with a nationalistic ideology can unify, surely the Muslims should be able to achieve the same with ease, because the Islamic teachings commands the believers to unify and discard nationalism.

Many will point to the failures of organisations like the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries), but this can be largely attributed to the leadership of the post-colonial generation. As the new generation of leaders emerges in the Islamic world, unification will be easier if there is a collective effort. Like the unification of European countries, this has to be achieved gradually by setting modest objectives, and continue to build on their experience. If the nations cannot cooperate at a basic level, then to expect the nations to merge instantly is the height of naivety.

The Islamic movements and activists should act as a catalyst by gradually introducing Islam in society and government, based on Islamic teachings they should promote the concept of electing rulers who will be held accountable to the masses, where the rule of law prevails. In each country these movements should encourage their respective governments to strengthen their ties and start to pool some of their sovereignty for the collective benefit, with the ultimate aim of producing a single Caliphate.

Yamin Zakaria

James Robertson Newsletter No. 31 - July 2010

James Robertson Newsletter No. 31 - July 2010

Links to previous Newsletters can be found here.

To be notified of new Newsletters, click here.


1. The UK Emergency Budget – Much Worse than Necessary

2. Book Reviews

(1) Mary Mellor,THE FUTURE OF MONEY: From Financial Crisis to Public Resource

(2) Clark McGinn, OUT OF POCKET: How Collective Amnesia lost the world its wealth, again

(3) John Stewart, PRIME MINISTER

(4) Fred Harrison, THE PREDATOR CULTURE: The Roots and Intent of Organised Violence

3. Further Points of Interest

(1) Latest "Tax Justice Focus" - on Land Value Taxation

(2) Free Lunch Blogspot 21 June on banking and land monopolies

(3) Elected European officials call for a European Finance Watch

(4) Financial Times Deutschland praises "Creating New Money"

(5) Resistance to Corporate Domination

(a) "Taming The Corporations", Austin Mitchell & Prem Sikka

(b) Benefit cheats compared with corporate tax cheats

(c) GM food and the Food Standards Agency; a sinister bid

(d) Agrarian Renaissance versus Corporate Supermarkets

(e) Campaign for Real Farming

4. Population Growth


The UK Coalition Government's Emergency Budget proposals of 22 June ignored a huge potential source of expenditure saving and public revenue. It has been estimated at £200 billion (click here).

It consists of: the hidden subsidies that we all pay to commercial banks because our governments give them the privilege of creating our national money supply as part of their profit-making business; and the lost money we would be benefiting from if new money was created as public revenue and spent into circulation by the government on purposes that meet public needs.

Political and media reporting and debate about the recent UK budget has been limited to conventional questions: does it strike a proper balance between rich and poor, between tax increases and public spending cuts, and between a Keynesian and a Thatcher/Reagan economic response to our potentially disastrous prospects? Decision-makers and mainstream commentators appear to be totally unaware that monetary reform could change our prospects dramatically for the better by providing a very significant contribution to paying back our huge deficit.

As well as that contribution to our immediate needs, there are other overwhelming arguments for monetary reform. They require no academic economic teaching to understand, just common sense. They include the following.

(1) In a more "normal" context, if the banks are allowed to create over 95% of our money as interest-bearing debt, the only way to maintain a financially sustainable situation is to let them create more money continually, in order that borrowers can pay the interest on the debt already created. That systematically creates inflation, a more indebted society, and a growing gap between rich and poor.

(2) "Normal" situations can't last very long when money is created that way. As profit-making businesses competing with one another, commercial banks are inevitably under pressure to create too much money; that causes recurrent booms which end in busts; in busts the banks will not create enough money to meet society's needs; then they can hold the government to ransom to bail them out with enough taxpayers' money to enable them to lend us what should be our own!

(3) Allowing the banks to decide how almost all the money in society is used on its first entry into circulation, and to be paid interest on it as it circulates until it is repaid,

  • distorts the economy in favour of activities profitable to the banks,

  • imposes a hidden charge on everyone who uses money, and

  • subsidises the banking industry, and so reduces the efficiency of the services it offers.

All these problems could be avoided by transferring to an agency of the state (the Bank of England) the function of:

  • creating all the national money debt-free to meet the monetary objectives laid down by the government; and

  • giving it to the government as public revenue to be spent into circulation under democratic budgetary procedures.

The present out-of-date, undemocratic way of managing national money supplies is a central part of how the world's money system now operates perversely as a whole, nationally and internationally.

Citizens of other countries also suffer unnecessarily from it, as the G8 and G20 meetings last month in Canada confirmed.


(1) Mary Mellor, THE FUTURE OF MONEY: From Financial Crisis to Public Resource, Pluto Press, 2010, 208pp, £13.99.

This is essential reading for anyone seriously wanting to understand the money system and its future.

Its chapter headings are as follows:

1. What is Money?

2. The Privatisation of Money

3. 'People's Capitalism': Financialisation and Debt

4. Credit and Capitalism

5. The Financial Crisis of 2007-08

6. Lessons from the Crisis

7. Public Money and Sufficiency Provisioning.

It concludes that:

"money is a public resource that should be used to provision human societies on the basis of social justice, wellbeing and environmental responsibility. A steady state economy would be possible if the money system was not driven by the demands of debt-based money, financial accumulation and profit-driven growth. Money should be reclaimed and democratised for the benefit of the whole of society and the natural world."

Inevitably there are some disputable points in the book. For example Gordon Brown did not make the Bank of England independent from the state (page 54). The Bank is an agency of the state. It is required to implement monetary policy objectives published by the elected government and parliament, and then to account to them for what it has done.

What Brown did was to take responsibility for decisions on changing interest rates away from politicians competing to serve their own electoral objectives, and give it to the Bank of England to respond professionally to what it thinks is the right way to meet the public monetary policy objectives the government has given it.

Another criticism could be that the book's title claims too much. The future of money and how it shapes the way we live won't entirely depend on how governments organise the creation and management of the money supply.

That will continue to play a dominant part. But how governments raise public revenue - what they tax and what they don't tax - and how they decide to distribute it through public spending will also help to determine the allocation of resources and relative costs and prices throughout an economy. How governments manage those functions today is just as perverse as how they manage the creation of money.

Finally, there is the question of capitalism and socialism.

In the book's 175 pages of text I counted 215 explicit references to "capitalism" and "capitalist" in a pejorative "anti-capitalist" sense. When they are not providing quotations from other writers, like Marx, they could almost always have been left out without any loss of meaning about the actual practices, policies, or purposes the particular bit of text is describing.

It's a pity that this potentially very important book is presented as part of a crusade against "capitalism". Presenting it as such could have the following consequences.

On the positive side, its insistent anti-capitalism may perhaps attract support for its vision of the future of money from committed "anti-capitalists" who might otherwise have ignored it.

Outweighing that, however, it will turn off everyone who is still determined to protect the idea of "capitalism" against the idea of "socialism".

More importantly, it may also repel potentially active supporters of reform who recognise that for the practical purpose of defining specific reforms the old opposition between "capitalism" and "socialism" is obsolete and backward-looking - unconstructively tilting at windmills, and distracting us from the practicalities of re-organising our money system to deal with needs of a democratic society today.

Some years ago I felt the same, but in the other direction, about the title to Jonathon Porritt's important book Capitalism as if the World Matters.

(2) Clark McGinn, OUT OF POCKET: How Collective Amnesia lost the world its wealth, again, Luath Press, 2010, paperback, 316 pp, £12.99.

Clark McGinn is a senior Scottish banker. His book is an informative, entertaining and well-written account of the crises of financial boom and bust that have resulted regularly over the centuries as the pendulum has swung between greed and fear. It is highly relevant to us today as world leaders fail to agree on how to recover from "the greatest financial debacle in history".

Part I is based on eleven case studies, including the South Sea Bubble of 1719, the absurd Dutch tulip price bubble of the 1630s, the Railway Mania of the 1830s/1840s and the Dot.Com Bubble of the 1990s. Going back to ancient times, Part VI's 11-page "Memorable Chronology of Collective Amnesia" summarises events since then in which our grandparents and their ancestors lost their money.

Part II is on "Banking Basics Gone Wrong - But How Does Banking Really Work?”. Part III is on "The Ten Laws of Banking and how they got broke"; the Seventh Law is "The Bonus Pool Does Not Reward Behaviour - It Sets It". Part IV is "Epilogue (Or Is It An Epitaph...) - The End Is Nigh". Part V is an amusing and informative fifty-page "Glossary of New Meanings For Old Words" - like "Casino Banking", "Dead Cat Bounce", "Due Diligence", "Insider Dealing", "Leverage", "Sovereign Wealth Funds" and "Too Big To Fail".

I recommend this book warmly. That's partly because it's an interesting read and quarry of information. But it's also partly because McGinn challenges us powerfully to disprove his forecast that, before many years have passed, collective amnesia will return and another boom and bust will hit us again. As our political and financial world leaders fail to agree at one international meeting after another on effective measures to prevent that happening, it seems all too probable.

We must agree with him that we won't be able to prevent it by seeking to change human nature; that would just be too naive. We need to change the institutional framework to motivate people positively, including bankers, to behave in ways that benefit themselves and their associates by serving the needs of society.

That means there is no alternative to depriving the banks of their present privilege of creating the public money supply as part of their profit-making business. Competition with one another is bound to compel them to create money faster and faster until bust follows boom.

(3) John Stewart, PRIME MINISTER, Shepheard-Walwyn, 2010, paperback, 224 pp, £9.95.

This appealing novel tells a great story of an unmarried thirty-six year old Prime Minister elected in a general election resembling our recent one, and faced with a complex of economic, financial and social challenges much like those we face today.

I won't spoil it by giving away all the plot. But it starts with him receiving a letter from a tall, trim, grey-haired family publisher, whose twenty-five year old unmarried daughter helps him to run his business.

The letter suggests that the crisis calls for a shift of taxation from earnings and enterprise on to community value, "the value that accrues to site location by the collective presence of the community". (We usually call it "land value taxation"). The story develops from there, and culminates with the parliamentary battle over the necessary money bill.

As many good stories do, it calls for some suspension of disbelief. But it's a page-turner; once it captures your attention you won't want to put it down. Splendid holiday reading - perhaps with a bottle of wine at hand, and a box of paper handkerchiefs for when you get to the tear-jerking bits.

Will the book be read by people who don't already understand the need for this tax shift? I very much hope it will, that they will enjoy it, and that it will convert them to support that reform.

(4) Fred Harrison, THE PREDATOR CULTURE: The Roots and Intent of Organised Violence, Shepheard-Walwyn, 2010, paperback, 192 pp, £17.95.

Strategic policy-making is organised now in such a way that it fails to take account of the connections between socio-economic policies and policies for creating and maintaining a more peaceful and safer world. The present difficulties of the NATO coalition in Afghanistan are a current example of that. This book addresses one aspect of the need to remedy that general failure, and is welcome for that reason.

It offers "a theory that explains socially organised violence in terms of a particular set of property rights ... historically the main intent behind the major events of violence having been the quest to appropriate other people's land, or the resources of nature in and on that land".

A Prologue on "The Failed State" is followed by three Parts: "A General Theory of Violence"; "The Social Pathology of Land Grabs"; and "Structures of Violence". Chapters on "Freedom through Taxation", "Truth and Reconciliation" and "Principles of Non-violent Governance" make up the concluding Part 4 on "Healing Humanity".

Among the many practical illustrations that Fred Harrison cites of how the way we deal with land rights affects peaceful co-existence in a society, he looks at lessons to be learned from Costa Rica about the sociology of peace, and from South Africa's efforts to achieve land justice after the end of apartheid.

On the latter, Harrison cites the programme to restore land to black citizens with an ancestral claim to tracts owned by white citizens. On a recent visit to South Africa he found that that programme is failing and threatening the food security of the country in much the same way as has brought Zimbabwe to its knees.

He suggests that an alternative more likely to succeed would be for white farmers to accept that they should pay the whole "economic rent" (site value) of their land as public revenue; and for Community Land Trusts to be set up, to be funded by some of that revenue, and to help black claimants to acquire the skills and capital to put the land to its best use - thus meeting both their own interest and the food needs of the rest of the population.

Many readers will, I believe, find much to interest them in this book and stimulate their thinking.

However, I should confess to a feeling that the book claims too much. Its first words stress the link between socially organised violence and capitalism. Its last few words are as follows:

"We need to re-socialise the publicly created value, and reprivatise the personally created value. With the adoption of that one principle, contests over who owns the land disappear; and with them systemic violence."

Surely a propensity towards violence, including socially organised violence, is more deeply rooted in human nature than that?

For example, socially organised violence began long before capitalism was thought of. A few examples would be: the campaigns of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan; the slave trade and the systematic working of thousands of slaves to death in silver mines by the city state of ancient Athens and the Spanish invaders in 16th-century Potosi; or the Crusades and the massacres of Jews in 12th-century England.

Certainly, many acts of socially organised violence can be connected with the violation of land rights. I strongly support the principle that people should pay for the benefits they take from the common wealth, including the site value of land. I also think some of the resulting revenue should be distributed to every citizen as a share of the common wealth.

But, although implementing that principle may be a necessary precondition for the disappearance of socially organised violence in a society, I find it difficult to believe it will be a sufficient condition.


(1) The latest issue of Tax Justice Focus - guest editor Carol Wilcox, secretary and treasurer of the Labour Land Campaign - is on Land Value Taxation. It is a very important presentation of a key money-system reform by a group of well qualified contributors. In his keynote contribution Nicolaus Tideman, Professor of Economics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, sets out six convincing arguments for LVT. This issue of Tax Justice Focus is a very welcome development by the Tax Justice Network, hitherto best known for its powerful opposition to the damage caused by tax havens.

(2) Charles Bazlinton at (21 June posting) concludes that "our political masters... should boldly take control of these banking and land monopolies for the public good . Other recent postings are also interesting.

(3) Elected European officials call for a European Finance Watch, as a counter-power from civil society to balance the power of banking and finance industry lobbyists in Brussels.

(4) An article in Financial Times Deutschland of 6th June 2010 (in German) refers to "Creating New Money" (written by Joseph Huber and myself ten years ago) as offering the best remedy to current monetary and financial ills.

(5) Resistance to Corporate Domination

(a) "Taming The Corporations" is a 56pp paper by Austin Mitchell MP and Professor Prem Sikka (click here, then click on Publications and then on "Taming the Corporations" - third on the list). This important paper provides evidence of systematic abuses of corporate power in virtually every sector of the economy.

(b) Benefit cheats cost the UK government £millions, whereas corporate tax cheats cost the UK government £billions. But “corporate fraud is treated more lightly than benefit fraud because it is committed by wealthy individuals and companies, who walk in the corridors of power and who are able to point to major economic consequences that they say would result if they were prosecuted" (from

(c) GM food and the Food Standards Agency: a sinister bid to twist public opinion.

(d) Agrarian Renaissance: an Alternative to Corporate Supermarket Consumerism.

(e) Campaign for Real Farming - Colin Tudge's blog.


Population growth is a feature of our world today that will affect future developments in almost every aspect of our lives. In that respect it is comparable in significance to how our money system works.

For a Summary of Forum For The Future's recent report, "Growing Pains: Population and Sustainability in the UK", click here. It sets out key issues, makes seven recommendations to policy makers, and tells you how to download the full report.

James Robertson

8th July 2010

First ALBA Trade in New Regional Currency

Venezuela Pays for First ALBA Trade with Ecuador in New Regional Currency

Caracas, Venezuela, July 7, 2010 ( Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took a giant symbolic leap in the direction of Latin American independence on Tuesday when his government and that of Ecuador conducted the first bilateral trade deal between two ALBA countries using the new trading currency, the Sucre, instead of the US dollar.

The Unitary System of Regional Compensation (Sucre) is the currency the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) regional bloc adopted in 2009 so that member states could trade internally without having to use the US dollar.

Paying for goods with the Sucre will avoid the transaction costs incurred when using dollars on the international markets and encourage a more stable trading system, less impacted on by global economic conditions.

Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa explained, “It is a very simple concept: instead of using a currency from outside of the region to trade in goods and services, we use this compensation system where you pay in national currency to your respective exporters and in that way the international currency isn’t needed.”

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said, “The moment has arrived to make the first step in the construction of the economic base that sustains social transformation” and “that frees our countries from poverty, backwardness.”

President Chavez added, “The implementation of the Sucre democratizes the economy in our countries, it allows us to advance towards freeing ourselves from the dollar, decoupling ourselves from the international hegemonic system.”

The first trade involved 15,000 tons of rice, sold to Venezuela from Ecuador. Venezuela paid 1.89 million Sucres (there are 1.25 Sucres to the dollar) for the rice.

Correa was in the Venezuelan capital Caracas with Chavez for the VIII quarterly bilateral presidential meeting that both leaders have committed to in order to strengthen relations between the two nations.

Correa spoke of the importance of the encounters, saying, “These meetings are very fruitful, we’ve managed to sign many accords, but not like those from before which were merely photo opportunities, now we make progress, drastic, efficacious and efficient change.”

Chavez explained the other items on the meeting’s agenda. “We were talking about creating Petrosur, that key aspect of regional integration, and the social missions, education and health,” he said.

Petrosur is a regional project promoted by Venezuela to integrate the oil reserves of Latin America and the Caribbean in order to implement a fair and sustainable energy policy for all. It foresees cooperation between the state oil companies of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Venezuela in order to achieve that aim.

Chavez also discussed the progress of a joint oil refinery construction project—the Pacific Petrochemical Complex—with Correa. The plant will be built on the Ecuadoran coast and is due to be completed by 2014.

ALBA is a regional integration bloc, begun by Venezuela and Cuba in 2004, in opposition to the neoliberal trade agreements the United States has pushed for in the region.

ALBA seeks solidaristic relations and trade among its member states to allow sustainable development and growth.

Its members are Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Antigua & Barbuda and San Vicente & the Grenadines.

Venezuela and Ecuador Boast of Drug-Free Border with Colombia

Chavez and Correa also declared on Tuesday that their respective countries’ borders with Colombia were coca and drug free after both presidents had received reports from their respective security services.

According to Chavez, the Venezuelan army’s operation Sierra XXII 2010 has announced that, for the fifth consecutive year running, the border is clear of any kind of illicit drug operations.

The Venezuelan president also said that a crucial reason for the success of the operation was the expulsion of US anti-narcotics agents from the country.

“We broke with the DEA (U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency) because it was like a state within a state,” said Chavez.

Chavez went on to say that the DEA had installations in Venezuelan territory in which his government and security forces were denied entry. He also accused the DEA of money laundering and said that narco-trafficking was “supported by the DEA.”

Venezuelan Minister of Popular Power for the Interior and Justice, Tareck El Aissami, said that Venezuela’s fight against narco-trafficking had become much more “efficient” since the break with the DEA.

He said, “We have arrested 48 bosses from narco-criminal organizations and this is due to our policies on sovereignty once we broke with the DEA. These are irrefutable results in this battle!”

Correa intervened, saying that, while Venezuela and Ecuador “don’t have to prove anything to anyone” in relation to their action against narco-traffickers, this does show what they were doing in the battle against narco-traffickers.

He also complained about a lack of state presence on the Colombian side of the border for fighting narco-traffickers, which he contrasted with the criticism Venezuela and Ecuador receive from the U.S. with regard to the fight against drug trafficking.

Gold swap mystery deepens

Gold swap mystery deepens as BIS gets correction from Wall Street Journal

Section:, July 7, 2010

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

The Wall Street Journal this evening updated and corrected its report about the gold swaps undertaken by the Bank for International Settlements, disclosing an e-mailed statement from the BIS stating that the swaps were with commercial banks, not central banks as the newspaper first reported.

The updated story suggests that some puzzlement continues about the swaps:

"The enormous amount of gold involved, nearly tripling what the BIS itself owns, left many market participants wondering about the nature of the deals. The BIS declined to identify the commercial banks involved. ... It isn't clear what prompted the banks to borrow from the BIS instead of their central banks."

Further, without citing authority the paper says "the gold hasn't entered the open market," but "if the banks that loaned the gold are for some reason unable to make good on the loan, the BIS could opt to sell the gold in order to get its money back, which could amount to flooding the market with an unexpected boost to the global supply."

But gold being money that for years has been appreciating against nearly all currencies, as noted for you a few minutes ago here --

-- why would any institution want to sell gold "to get its money back?" -- unless, of course, "flooding the market" and suppressing the gold price wasn't the real objective?

Another unanswered question is where the European commercial banks got all that gold, "349 metric tons ... nearly tripling what the BIS itself owns." The European commercial banks aren't known for holding that much metal on their own account. (If you rent a safe-deposit box at a European commercial bank, you might want to check its contents in the morning.)

While the story has changed in an important way, the first principle of journalism hasn't, and journalists here haven't yet demanded information from the primary sources, the BIS and the commercial banks themselves. Nor has there been any change in the conclusion that must be drawn from the story so far. That is, the secrecy and the involvement of the BIS, an admitted gold market rigger, impugn the transaction as part of another gold market rigging scheme.

The Wall Street Journal's updated and corrected story is appended.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

* * *

Commercial Banks Used Gold Swaps

By Carolyn Cui and Liam Pleven
The Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, July 7, 2010

The Bank for International Settlements said it loaned billions of dollars backed by gold to commercial banks in recent months.

Most of the loans -- known as gold swaps -- were conducted with European banks in exchange for foreign currencies, mainly U.S. dollars, according to data released last week in the BIS's annual report.

"The operations concerned were purely market operations with commercial banks," the BIS said in an email statement. The statement came in response to a Wall Street Journal article on Wednesday that said the BIS swaps were with central banks.

The sheer size of the recent swaps -- involving 349 metric tons of gold, valued at about $14 billion currently -- indicates the stress that the international banking system is under, particularly in European countries facing investor concerns about sovereign-debt woes.

The enormous amount of gold involved, nearly tripling what the BIS itself owns, left many market participants wondering about the nature of the deals. The BIS declined to identify the commercial banks involved.

The BIS report indicated that all its outstanding gold swaps are set to expire in less than one year, when the borrowers are obliged to repay the loans and repurchase the gold. The swaps are backed by gold held at central banks.

The Basel-based international agency is known as a bank for central banks. It takes deposits from central banks but lends to a broader spectrum of financial institutions, including commercial banks and corporations.

Through an arrangement called "gold swap," financial institutions exchange gold with the BIS in return for cash, agreeing to buy back the gold at a later date. The practical implications for the gold market are limited, because the gold hasn't entered the open market.

By contrast, the BIS reported that it had no gold swaps outstanding at the end of the prior fiscal year. Gold swaps have rarely been used at the BIS in recent years, largely because capital was often readily available in the marketplace.

It isn't clear what prompted the banks to borrow from the BIS instead of their central banks. "It's odd, but it could be bad," said Andy Smith, senior metals strategist at Bache Commodities Group in London.

Analysts note that the time of the transactions -- mostly taking place in January --coincides with a flare-up in worries about a sovereign-debt crisis in Greece spreading across Europe.

If the borrowings were prompted by the need to enhance liquidity, it would have "a greater resonance" in the gold market, said Philip Klapwijk, executive chairman of GFMS Ltd., a London-based metals consultancy. "Whatever your long position was in gold, you would rationally decide there were more risks attached to it," Mr. Smith said. "Something untoward might happen with this gold that was being swapped."

If the banks that loaned the gold are for some reason unable to make good on the loan, the BIS could opt to sell the gold in order to get its money back, which could amount to flooding the market with an unexpected boost to the global supply.

On Wednesday, the gold contract for July delivery eked out a gain of $3.80 per troy ounce to settle at $1,198.60 on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange. It is now off 5% from its record hit on June 18.

Prices of gold are up 9.4% so far this year, so banks might have to record losses on the swaps and pay more to buy back the gold from the BIS, though they may also have hedged that risk.

Mystery around Spectre Bank (BIS) gold swaps

Mystery around BIS gold swaps impugns them as market rigging


11:45a ET Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

What can be made of this week's reports that the Bank for International Settlements has undertaken gold swaps with central banks, giving them dollars for their pawned gold?

A few things have to be considered.

First, the BIS apparently has been engaged in surreptitious manipulation of the gold market for a long time.

GATA has often publicized the acknowledgement made by BIS official William S. White in a speech to central bankers and friends at a BIS conference in Basel, Switzerland, in June 2005. Among the five objectives of central bank cooperation, White said, was "the provision of international credits and joint efforts to influence asset prices (especially gold and foreign exchange) in circumstances where this might be thought useful." You can find White's speech here:

The profile of the BIS published in November 1983 by Harper's magazine and written by Edward J. Epstein, who seems to have had unprecedented access to bank officials, described the bank as frequently intervening in the gold market surreptitiously:

And of course the BIS was the lead defendant in GATA consultant Reg Howe's gold market manipulation lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Boston in 2000:

So the BIS' gold dealings cannot be assumed to be innocent.

Second, while news reports describe the BIS gold swaps as a means for central banks to "raise cash," central banks are able to create money out of nothing; they don't have to sell or lend anything to create money, or at least not to create their own money. They might have to sell or lend something to obtain the currency of some other nation. For example, other nations might have to sell or lend gold to obtain U.S. dollars.

But, third, the U.S. Federal Reserve lately has made all sorts of currency swap arrangements with other central banks so that they all can have plenty of dollars to use for market intervention. Other central banks have been able to obtain plenty of dollars just by creating more of their own currency and exchanging it with the Fed. In effect all the major Western central banks now are able to create dollars at will.

So why did any central bank have to lend or pawn its gold to get dollars?

Was there some agreement among central banks, or some insistence by the United States, that more gold had to be put into the market to defend currencies, government bonds, and low interest rates, to augment the quiet gold sales recently undertaken in London every month by the International Monetary Fund? The IMF too is supposedly selling gold to "raise cash," even as it is part of the central banking system that can "raise cash" just by creating it. Have the Western central banks more or less re-established the price-suppressing London Gold Pool of the 1960s, only this time surreptitiously?

Given the BIS' traditional interest in "the provision of international credits and joint efforts to influence asset prices (especially gold and foreign exchange) in circumstances where this might be thought useful," the BIS-arranged gold swaps must be suspected as part of a scheme to manipulate the gold market.

In any case why is the mystery, the lack of official explanation, of these transactions accepted as the natural order of things?

Why has the news of these transactions been entirely a matter of one particular market analyst's deciphering a footnote in the back of a BIS report published a week ago?

Why did the BIS and the central banks involved in the transactions make no announcement?

Why aren't financial news organizations demanding candid answers from the BIS and its associated central banks about what's really going on here?

Why, instead, are financial news organizations relying on mere speculation from private market observers?

Of course there was no announcement or candid explanation from the BIS and the central banks because what they do is indeed most likely market manipulation and cannot bear scrutiny.

And there is no effective inquiry from financial news organizations, no going to the source, because they're lazy, ignorant, scared, or simply bought by the financial institutions they report about.

An example of such timid reporting, from today's Wall Street Journal, is appended.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

BIS Spectre Bank monster gold swap

With BIS gold swap, central banks throw the kitchen sink at gold


7:30p ET Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

Western central banks have begun throwing the kitchen sink at gold, as word broke today of a monster gold swap undertaken by the Bank for International Settlements, which, as GATA noted the other day, long has been a center of surreptitious gold market intervention (see and indeed was the lead defendant in GATA consultant Reg Howe's gold price manipulation lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Boston in 2000 (see The BIS gold swap appears to involve 380 tonnes that likely were sold into the market immediately. A report about it can be found at Jesse's Cafe Americain here:

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

mercoledì 7 luglio 2010

BNP, a banca universale, rischio universale!

BNP, a banca universale, rischio universale!

Fonte articolo originale:

Traduzione e note a pié di pagina a cura di Nicoletta Forcheri

Stampalibera, – 5 luglio 2010 – 21:48

5 luglio 2010 (Nouvelle Solidarité) – Adesso sappiamo perché Michel Pébereau [1], presidente di BNP Paribas [2], semina il terrore nelle istituzioni francesi: se le autorità ristabilissero la separazione tra banche di deposito e speculazione, la BNP morirebbe all’istante. La situazione reale di questa banca senza macchia, si commenta da sola.

Secondo Charles Dereeper, ex broker di BNP diventato oggi giornalista economico, le tre grandi banche francesi «funzionano con un livello di rischio superiore a tantissimi hedge funds ». E la più minacciata, continua, è proprio quella di Pébereau : «BNP vanta un totale di debiti pari a 1940 miliardi di euro. Le sue riserve sono di circa 60 miliardi circa. L’effetto leva è di 32. Basterebbe un 3% di crediti incagliati perché la BNP fallisca» !

BNP è quindi un colosso dai piedi d’argilla che può solo sopravvivere racimolando liquidità a tutto spiano. Se il vostro consigliere BNP vi chiama per proporvi un investimento retribuito al 12%, non mostratevi sorpresi ma parlategli piuttosto del suo bilancio ! Ciononostante per BNP e consorelle, il migliore modo rimane ancora quello di servirsi dalle casse dello Stato [3]. Le nostre banche detengono 79 miliardi di euro di debito greco (cifra della Banca dei regolamenti internaionali BRI). La Francia di Sarkozy è stata la prima a promuovere freneticamente il “salvataggio” della Grecia (130 miliardi di euro). Ma il denaro non ha avuto il tempo di arrivare in Grecia che è subito ripartito nelle casse dei creditori internazionali del governo greco. Ed ecco salvate le banche! Grazie Nicolas, grazie Dominiqe [Strauss-Kahn] !

Le banche possono contare anche sull’amico Trichet, governatore della venerabile Banca centrale europea (BCE) che ha prestato loro 240 miliardi in 48 ore il 30 giugno e il 1 luglio, affinché potessero rimborsare i 442 miliardi che le dovevano !

Il ripristino della separazione tra banche di deposito e banche d’affari, previsto in Svizzera, Germania e Italia, è un elemento fondamentale. Le nostre banche universali non sopravviveranno al sistema, allora tanto vale smantellarle subito, salvaguardando le attività di deposito e di credito e buttando il resto degli attivi alla pattumiera.


[1] Michel Pébereau è uomo di Frère, poiché è amministratore anche in numerose società del suo impero: Total, Lafarge, Pargesa Holding (oltre ad Axa, EADS NV e Saint Gobain)

[2] BNP PARIBAS controlla dal 2006 al cento per cento BNL, ed è la socia di Albert Frère in Suez Gaz de France, Total e le altre società del suo impero.

[3] BNP Paribas è detenuta al 17% dalla Francia, e in percentuali minori da Lussemburgo e Belgio (11,1%). La fusione tra BNP e Paribas era stata effettuata con l’aiuto di AXA. Ultimamente ha acquisito a un prezzo stracciato la banca Fortis, fallita fraudolosamente per colpa di Maurice Lippens, socio proglobalizzazione del presidente onorario del Bilderberg Davignon, in seguito alla decisione di acquisire ABN Amro, a un prezzo esorbitante. In seguito all’iniezione di denaro e parziale nazionalizzazione da parte dei tre paesi Belgio, Olanda e Lussemburgo, l’Olanda ha deciso di riprendersi ABN Amro olandese e la parte olandese di Fortis. Lo Stato ha quindi venduto – contrariamente al parere dei piccoli azionisti che si erano nel frattempo ritrovati con un pugno di mosche in mano- Fortis a BNP Paribas.

Nel consiglio di amministrazione costituito da 13 membri di BNP Paribas, figurano il presidente di Saint Gobain, quello di Renault, quello del consiglio di sorveglianza di Axa, quello del consiglio di sorveglianza di Thyssen Krupp, e i presidenti di altre società come la Scor, Medef, Pechel Industries, Air Liquide, Legrand.