Scotty mulls over some of the output of the pressure group Positve Money.
This is Paul Moore, former head of Group Regulatory Risk at HBOS, being interviewed by Positive Money UK.
“Why was there a court jester?,” he asks.
“Because the only way to speak the truth to the King was to dress up like a lunatic”
Ha ha! Very true statement.
Paul Moore continues…”I was presented as a lunatic after I did speak the truth to power.”
POSITIVE MONEY is only half way to telling the truth about money, and in my (TAP’s) opinion are a diversionary tactic by the powerful to create managed dissent.
This is an interview with Ben Dyson and Andrew Jackson from Positive Money. They say the right to create money should be taken away from the corporate banking sector – correct, of course – and given over to a newly created committee at the Bank of England – which is maybe not a good idea.
We know all about the BoE. Even though it was nationalised after WW2, all the investments and the profits are private.
‘Nationalisation’ of the BoE was just a clever ploy that resulted in taxpayers picking up the tab for administration of these private investments.
Maybe this arrangement can be viewed as the first PPP (Public Private Partnership), which are no more than taxpayer-funded corporations.
TfL (Transport for London) is a prime example of this. Taxpayers are burdened with all the nasty bits i.e. capital investment, long-term liabilities, etc – while the private side of the PPP entity get all the good bits – fat profits, all guaranteed by taxpayers, of course.
The fact that Positive Money do not think that the power of money creation and regulation of the money supply should be given over to governments I find ‘interesting‘.
(TAP – That means to me that Positive Money are nothing more than an insider managed dissent operation. If democratically elected governments cannot be trusted with money creation, who will get rid of the committees when corruption sets in? The current system of trusting insiders has to be thrown to the dogs entirely, root and branch. Politicians should stand for election based on their money management promises.).
The concept is rubbished early on in the interview.
They state that we need a ‘transparent, independent, accountable body‘ to be given the power to create money. A definition of a properly run, democratic government, surely – and most definitely not a definition of the BoE.
I think there maybe something else going on here, not sure what…a hidden agenda?
They recommend a book called The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery and Destructive Economics by Michael Rowbothom (1998), which I’m going to get hold of.
The power to create money and the regulation of the money supply (how much money is actually in existence at any given time) I believe, is THE fundamental question and the root of maybe ALL the problems we are now facing in society.
Why would we give these powers to private corporations?
We, the people, through ‘transparent, independent, accountable ‘ governments, should own this power and we should not allow private interests any say whatsoever.
The BoE has been creating money and profiting, hugely, since its creation in 1694, following the ‘Glorious Revolution’ when William of Orange took the throne in 1688. I have read somewhere that the new way of producing was called ‘Dutch money’.
The American War of Independence was fought over this issue, as the American colonies were printing their own money and growing very wealthy as a result.
The following is borrowed from this website: http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html
“During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how could he account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.
“That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.“
America had learned that the people’s confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.
In Response the world’s most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.
This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.
Here is what Franklin said after that.
“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”
“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War.”
Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography “
So, when you read in history books and watch historical documentaries on television telling you that the American War of Independence was all about tax on tea – remember you are being lied to.
Sean writes –
I’m thinking that you could be a bit paranoid ?
I watched the positive money vid – and they guy came over as genuine – he identified the problem with the current situation – he also explained the problem with handing over complete control of the money supply to any one government . He then came up with an alternate solution – which seems like a reasonable 3rd way – creating a group within a reformed BOE which has a responsibility to the state – and would have to publish details of its activities and policies – taking account different metrics – for example comparing the Money supply to the current inflation rate . Its too complex a subject to detail everything in a single interview – and its clear that along with the new scrutiny – would have to come accountability – ultimately they would have to be answerable in some way to the public – but perhaps we would have to be more creative in this respect. I dont have an immediate answer – but if we set out the objectives of how we want them to work – I’m sure we would come up with an appropriate structure – perhaps a revised upper chamber of some description . It is certainly tough to come up with an ‘ independent ‘ body – but the key here is that the body would be open to public scrutiny – and ultimately , in some way ,be accountable . Just handing it to the government of the day probably doesn’t satisfy – so we should be investigating what would.
I dont see the need to label PM as inside managed dissent – on the basis of this vid ? Or are they really ALL out to get us ?
TAP – Who’s going to sling out the money issuers when they get corrupted and start playing Rothschild type power games? The rules of their operations need setting very tightly so they have no leeway. I would question anyone who easily trusts money issuers after the experiences of the last three hundred years. They are spraying poisons over my house every few days. They are desperate to hang on to their power, after enjoying it so long in secret, so much so, they do wish to kill off all potential opposition. They used to need people to staff armies to fight wars. They use machines now, and drones to overfly. We are literally superfluous, hence the rush to exterminate useless mouths. If you doubt the truth of what I’m saying, you’re not looking at the evidence. It’s in the sky above you every few days. You’re breathing the stuff. Wise up.