Sell-Out of Tax Payers – As Sell-Off of Lloyds Bank – To Large Investors – Takes Place

English: Study on alternative investments by i...

English: Study on alternative investments by institutional investors. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Government sells 6 per cent of shares in Lloyds Banking Group, at 75p per share.

The government has today begun the process of selling part of its shares in Lloyd’s Banking Group. It has sold 6 per cent of the shares in the bank, at a price of 75p per share. A profit has been made from the sale, which will be used to pay down the national debt.

The Chancellor received advice from UK Financial Investments yesterday that it would be appropriate to begin the process to sell part of the government’s shareholding in Lloyd’s. The Chancellor agreed with that advice and authorised the process to begin.

Today marks an important step in the government’s plan for the recovery of Britain’s banking system.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, said:

I can confirm this morning that we have sold 6% of Lloyd’s Bank at 75p a share. That is a profit for taxpayers, and rightly so. The money will be used to reduce the national debt by over half a billion pounds.

This is another step in the long journey in putting right what went so badly wrong in the British economy; it’s another step in repairing the banks; it’s another step in getting the money back for the taxpayer; and it’s another step in reducing our national debt.

All of those things together are good news.

If you look at what has happened over the last 12 hours with Lloyd’s, you have investors from around the world investing in a British bank. That is a sign the British economy is turning a corner.

On the face of it this looks good for the tax payer  and couched in the correct way such as the return and the overall benefits, we could start to believe this government really cares about the use of tax payers money! The fact is look much deeper at the way it has been worded by our Chancellor and look at who will benefit and a very different story emerges! The actual shares are to be sold off or should l say offered to:

 Institutional investors are organizations which pool large sums of money and invest those sums in securitiesreal property and other investment assets. They can also include operating companies which decide to invest their profits to some degree in these types of assets.

Typical investors include banks, insurance companies, retirement or pension fundshedge fundsinvestment advisors and mutual funds. Their role in the economy is to act as highly specialized investors on behalf of others. For instance, an ordinary person will have a pension from his employer. The employer gives that person’s pension contributions to a fund. The fund will buy shares in a company, or some other financial product. Funds are useful because they will hold a broad portfolio of investments in many companies. This spreads risk, so if one company fails, it will be only a small part of the whole fund’s investment.

Institutional investors will have a lot of influence in the management of corporations because they will be entitled to exercise the voting rights in a company. They can actively engage in corporate governance. Furthermore, because institutional investors have the freedom to buy and sell shares, they can play a large part in which companies stay solvent, and which go under. Influencing the conduct of listed companies, and providing them with capital are all part of the job of investment management.

This will of course look to bolster the economy for the institutions and at the same time make the pension funds look more healthy for the beleaguered OAPS investments, which of course were decimated back in 2008, at the time of the financial crisis, brought on mainly by the banks and their risky lending policy, something that our previous Bank of England Manager would not sanction, but enter Osborne’s new replacement and all of a sudden, risky lending is back on the cards! Anyone uncertain of Mr Carney’s track record for taking risks read his policy in the Canadian Banking Industry and see what l mean!

So now we have what l can only term as a sell-out of the tax payer, having bolstered up the banks with the hard-earned tax payers funds, using infrastructure funds ,that should light our streets or renew our roads, and now the 4 year plan is completed! Oh yes also a split between the savings and retail arms of what was Lloyd’s TSB Bank Plc and now we have to distinct banks Lloyd’s Bank PLC and TSB Bank PLC, has also taken place, allowing any toxic assets to disappear, into the restructuring process!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240104/Chancellor_letter.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240105/UKFI_letter.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240106/Perm_sec.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240104/Chancellor_letter.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240105/UKFI_letter.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/240106/Perm_sec.pdf

UK Financial Investments:

Take a look at their site and view their pdf containing details of the sell-off you even have to agree not to use the information in the US, but visit here is a link to their site: http://www.ukfi.co.uk/

#acenewsservices, #sellout, #business, #economy, #economy-of-the-united-kingdom, #george-osborne, #government, #lloyds, #lloyds-bank, #lloyds-banking-group, #mutual-fund, #politics, #the-survivors-of-the-chancellor, #uk-financial-investments-limited

European banks would quickly relocate to the European continent from London if Britain exits the EU!

According to the EU Observer the other day, on the ticker news the co chiefs executives of Goldman Sachs have said that every European firm ,would be gone! The fact that this would leave the marketplace free of these controllers

Michael Sherwood and Richard Gnodde, the co-chief executives of Goldman Sachs International, have said. “Every European firm would be gone in very short order,” Sherwood told the Evening Standard newspaper.

http://euobserver.com/tickers/121291

#acefinancenews, #business, #economy, #euobserver, #european-union, #evening-standard, #goldman-sachs, #goldman-sachs-international, #michael-sherwood, #politics, #richard-gnodde, #sherwood

Tavistock: The Best Kept Secret in America

Formed in 1947, the Tavistock Institute is an independent not-for-profit organization which seeks to combine research in the social sciences with professional practice. Problems of institution-building and organizational design and change are being tackled in all sectors – government, industry and commerce, health and welfare, education, etc. – nationally and internationally, and clients range from multinationals to small community groups. A growth area has been the use of a developmental approach to evaluation of new and experimental programs, particularly in health, education and community development. This has also produced new training events alongside the regular program of group relations conferences. The Institute owns and edits the monthly journal Human Relations (published by Plenum Press) which is now in its 48th year, and has recently launched (in conjunction with Sage Publications) a new journal Evaluation.

Three elements combine to make the Institute unusual, if not unique: it has the independence of being entirely self-financing, with no subsidies from the government or other sources; the action research orientation places it between, but not in, the worlds of academia and consultancy; and its range of disciplines include anthropology, economics, organizational behavior, political science, psychoanalysis, psychology and sociology.

The ideology of American foundations was created by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. In 1921, the Duke of Bedford, Marquess of Tavistock, the 11th Duke, gave a building to the Institute to study the effect of shellshock on British soldiers who survived World War I. Its purpose was to establish the “breaking point” of men under stress, under the direction of the British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare, commanded by Sir John Rawlings-Reese.

Tavistock Institute is headquartered in London. Its prophet, Sigmond Freud, settled in Maresfield Gardens when he moved to England. He was given a mansion by Princess Bonaparte. Tavistock’s pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of “controlling” humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, <http://watch.pair.com/Hudson.html>Hudson Institute, <http://watch.pair.com/heritage.html>Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personal are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations. The personnel of the corporations are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions. A network of secret groups, the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, and the Club of Rome is conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.

Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used experimentally on American prisoners of war in Korea. Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behavior through topical psychology. A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as a “refugee”, the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve us in World War II.

In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S. sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies. To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before setting up OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.

Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids carried out by Roosevelt and Churchill purely as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the “guinea pigs” reacting under “controlled laboratory conditions”. All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal—to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behavior, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of crowd control.

The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to “establish new rituals of personal interaction”, that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives, destroying their ability to establish or maintain a family. Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any field unless he has been trained in behavioral science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries.

Henry Kissinger, whose meteoric rise to power is otherwise inexplicable, was a German refugee and student of Sir John Rawlings-Reese at SHAEF. Dr. Peter Bourne, a Tavistock Institute psychologist, picked Jimmy Carter for President of the U.S. solely because Carter had undergone an intensive brainwashing program administered by Admiral Hyman Rickover at Annapolis. The “experiment” in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert, of the OSS and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the Commission on Community Relations. The program was designed to break down the individual’s sense of personal knowledge in his identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the National Education Association. The Institute of Social Research at the National Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of business and government.

Such is the power of Tavistock that our entire space program was scrapped for nine years so that the Soviets could catch up. The hiatus was demanded in an article written by Dr. Anatol Rapport, and was promptly granted by the government, to the complete mystification of everyone connected with NASA. Another prominent Tavistock operation is the Wharton School of Finance, at the University of Pennsylvania. A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy—the use of drugs. The infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD, and their reaction studied like “guinea pigs”, resulted in several deaths.

The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but the culprits were never indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid [LSD]. Roosevelt’s advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the <http://watch.pair.com/FreedomHouse.html#ips>Institute for Policy Studies to promote the drug. The result was the LSD “counter-culture” of the 1960s, the “student revolution”, which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.

One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund; the CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions; the patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments.

The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but the culprits were never indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid [LSD]. Roosevelt’s advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the <http://watch.pair.com/FreedomHouse.html#ips>Institute for Policy Studies to promote the drug. The result was the LSD “counter-culture” of the 1960s, the “student revolution”, which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.

One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund; the CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions; the patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments.

Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 Billion a year network of Foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers’ money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the World Order over the American people. The Stanford Research Institute, adjoining the Hoover Institution, is a $150 million a year operation with 3300 employees. It carries on program surveillance for Bechtel, Kaiser, and 400 other companies, and extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. It is the largest institution on the West Coast promoting mind control and the behavioral sciences.

One of the key agencies as a conduit for secret instructions from Tavistock is the Ditchley Foundation, founded in 1957. The American branch of the Ditchley Foundation is run by Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State, and director of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[Editor, Tim Aho’s note: The wife of Winston Lord (CFR, Bilderberg, Skull & Bones), Bette Bao Lord (CFR, Bilderberg), is Chairman of the Board of Freedom House whose manipulation of the Christian Right via the Religious Persecution issue is documented in our report <http://watch.pair.com/FreedomHouse.html>Freedom House: A CFR Front.]

One of the principal but little known operations of the Rockefeller Foundation has been its techniques for controlling world agriculture. Its director, Kenneth Wernimont, set up Rockefeller controlled agricultural programs throughout Mexico and Latin America. The independent farmer is a great threat to the World Order, because he produces for himself, and because his produce can be converted into capital, which gives him independence. In Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks believed they had attained total control over the people; they were dismayed to find their plans threatened by the stubborn independence of the small farmers, the Kulaks.

Stalin ordered the OGPU to seize all food and animals of the Kulaks, and to starve them out. The Chicago American, February 25, 1935 carried a front page headline, SIX MILLION PERISH IN SOVIET FAMINE; Peasants’ Crops Seized, They and their Animals Starve. To draw attention from this atrocity, it was later alleged that the Germans, not the Soviets, had killed six million people, the number taken from the Chicago American headline by a Chicago publicist.

The Communist Party, the Party of the Peasants and Workers, exterminated the peasants and enslaved the workers. Many totalitarian regimes have found the small farmer to be their biggest stumbling block. The French Reign of Terror was directed, not against the aristocrats, many of whom were sympathetic to it, but against the small farmers who refused to turn over their grain to the revolutionary tribunals in exchange for the worthless assignats. In the United States, the foundations are presently engaged in the same type of war of extermination against the American farmer.

The traditional formula of land plus labor for the farmer has been altered due to the farmer’s need for purchasing power, to buy industrial goods needed in his farming operations. Because of this need for capital, the farmer is especially vulnerable to the World Order’s manipulation of interest rates, which is bankrupting him. Just as in the Soviet Union, in the early 1930s, when Stalin ordered the Kulaks to give up their small plots of land to live and work on the collective farms, the American small farmer faces the same type of extermination, being forced to give up his small plot of land to become a hired hand for the big agricultural trusts. The Brookings Institution and other foundations originated the monetary programs implemented by the Federal Reserve System to destroy the American farmer, a replay of the Soviet tragedy in Russia, with one proviso that the farmer will be allowed to survive if he becomes a slave worker of the giant trusts.

Once the citizen becomes aware of the true role of the foundations, he can understand the high interest rates, high taxes, the destruction of the family, the degradation of the churches into forums for revolution, the subversion of the universities into CIA cesspools of drug addiction, and the halls of government into sewers of international espionage and intrigue. The American citizen can now understand why every agent of the federal government is against him; the alphabet agencies, the FBI, IRS, CIA and BATF must make war on the citizen in order to carry out the programs of the foundations.

The foundations are in direct violation of their charters, which commit them to do “charitable” work, because they make no grants which are not part of a political goal. The charge has been made, and never denied, that the Heritage-AEI network has at least two KGB moles on its staff. The employment of professional intelligence operatives as “charitable” workers, as was done in the Red Cross Mission to Russia in 1917, exposes the sinister political economic and social goals which the World Order requires the foundations to achieve through their ” bequests “.

Not only is this tax fraud, because the foundations are granted tax exemption solely to do charitable work, but it is criminal syndicalism, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States of America, Constitutional Law 213, Corpus Juris Secundum 16. For the first time, the close interlocking of the foundation “syndicate” has been revealed by the names of its principle incorporators—Daniel Coit Gilman, who incorporated the Peabody Fund and the John Slater Fund, and became an incorporator of the General Education Board (now the Rockefeller Foundation); Gilman, who also incorporated the Russell Trust in 1856, later became an incorporator of the Carnegie Institution with Andrew Dickson White (Russell Trust) and Frederic A. Delano. Delano also was an original incorporator of the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Daniel Coit Gilman incorporated the Russell Sage Foundation with Cleveland H. Dodge of the National City Bank. These foundations incorporators have been closely linked with the Federal Reserve System, the War Industries Board of World War I, the OSS of World War II and the CIA. They have also been closely linked with the American International Corporation, which was formed to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Delano, an uncle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was on the original Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 1914. His brother-in-law founded the influential Washington law firm of Covington and Burling. The Delanos and other ruling families of the World Order trace their lineage directly back to William of Orange and the regime which granted the charter of the Bank of England.

#acenewsservices, #climate, #duke-of-bedford, #england, #hudson-institute, #libya, #london, #politics, #research, #science, #sri-international, #tavistock, #tavistock-institute, #tavistock-institute-of-human-relations, #united-states

EUropean Economic Community – Prelude To The EU

Euro Disaster  Peace, When It Loses The War.’ and details of the massive amounts of cash moved out of Germany during the war to safeguard the future of German domination against the economic collapse of losing the Second World War against EUropean Union. AND connections with organisations like The Bilderberger’s, Council for Foreign relations, Tri Lateral Commission and other arms of the New World Order.

Around the end of 1939, most of Europe was either consciously or unconsciously under the influence of the economic concept of England. Over recent years, however, it has been swept out of European countries, politically, militarily and economically. Politically the three-power pact has given honour once again to the ancient figures of life, people and room. It has also established a natural order and a neighbourly way of co-existing as the ideal of the new order. The foundation of English economics, which is the basis of the balance of powers, has been militarily destroyed. And economically, a change has come about after the political and military development, the shape of which is easy to describe, but whose final significance is very difficult to evaluate. I can only repeat, that the changing order that is happening now has to be ranked as one of the greatest economic revolutions in history. It signifies a reversion of the economy of Europe to a time before the English concept of building an overseas Europe, i.e. an awareness of one’s own country.

The Discussion so far and its Results

Discussions about questions relating to Europe started as the power of the NSADP grew. At the Congress of Europe in Rome from 14th to 20th November 1932, Alfred Rosenberg developed, for the first time in front of an international forum, thoughts and ideas that have moved us since. No one, who fights for a new economic order in Europe, can ignore these perceptions and conclusions. The economic and political wheel was set in motion, when the NSDAP declared the militarization of the German economy. It is to the credit of the journal ‘Germany’s Economy’ that it first seized these questions in 1932, kept on bringing them up and stuck doggedly to those original perceptions. The idea of German economic self- sufficiency in the new political sense and the German economic militarization are synonymous with this journal. Besides this, Daitz, the ambassador, has earned the special credit of being the first to have related German economic history to the present time. Part II of his selected speeches and essays, which appeared in 1938 under the title ‘Germany and the European Economy’, summarizes his concepts formed between 1932 and 1938. The Italian, Carlo Scarfoglio, delivered with his book ‘England and the Continental Mainland’, a decisive historical contribution to the consciousness of the European continent. Meanwhile German and Italian economic policy drew the political consequences from the historical lessons that were learnt during the blockade and learnt again during the sanctions. The speech made in Munich in 1939 by the leader of the Reich’s farmers, R. Walther Darre, at the 6th Great Lecture at the Commission of Economic Policy of the NSDAP, takes a special place in the discussion at that time. Its theme was “The market order of the National-Socialist agricultural policy – setting the pace for a new foreign trade order.”

While our leader maintained the hope of reaching a peaceful agreement with England, the route for European economic unity remained problematic. The end of 1939 was a decisive point and it was natural that the years 1940-1941 heralded the new economic and political order. The writer, in particular, developed and extended in speech and writing the intellectual fund of the new economic policy, which has been translated into most languages, so that today everywhere the great constructive texts are known. These contexts revolve around the following issues:

  1. Theory about the Reich and the European economy.

  1. The historic, cultural, and economic significance of the German economic order.

  1. The foundations of the future economic relationships between the states.

  1. The nature of the European economic community.

On 25th June 1940 the Reich’s Economic Minister, Funk, publicised in his official capacity his thoughts, which underlined the development so far and thus gave them state sanction. In October, the journal ‘German Economy’ summarised for the first time the principles of European co-operation, the fundamental principles of German foreign trade, Germany’s export economy and ways and means of promoting export. It did so in a popular review “About A New Europe”, providing an overview of the important problem of European economic fusion. Around the end of 1940 the Berlin historian Fritz Rorig finally outlined in his book “Hanseatic Essence” the historical foundations of the greatest economic and political achievement by the Germans.

I am clear in my mind that total clarity is to be found in the principle questions: The necessity is recognised for a political order for the economic co-operation of the people. The nature of the new order : awareness of tradition, using up one’s own economic resources, long-term economic agreements and fair relations, is affirmed. The economic inter-dependence is underlined by fate. The economic unity of Europe is thus clear.

Economic Practice:

Even practical economic life has increasingly allowed entry to new thoughts. I am able to see the decisive steps in the start and realisation of the following points:

  1. In the increasing payment traffic through Berlin.

  1. In the exchange of experiences in various areas of economic life. Thereto belong also the statements of ministers and business people, the calls made by special advisers and the collective tackling of important tasks relating to the economy. Even the specialist is surprised, once he has taken the trouble to put together all the connections. Today they are already legion.

  1. In the signing of long-term economic agreements between the Reich and the other European states, which the public is aware of, there can be no doubt that such agreements are those of the future.

Of course, that cannot prevent unclear points and new problems from arising, which become clear at the time when the situation is reviewed.

Problems Related to the Economic Community of Continental Europe

These unclear points primarily relate to the concept of economic direction, the extent of solidarity and neighbourly attitude, the development of one’s own powers, the care to maintain the standard of living and the question of raw material purchase from foreign countries. It is natural that one or another issue will take priority of interest, depending on the set of conditions that prevail. It should be attempted at this point to give a reply, albeit a summary one.

There can be no doubt that the concept of direction of the economy, or rather its leadership, is as novel as it is revolutionary. Its classification is all the more important, as the fate and consequence of European co-operation depend principally on a new consistent form of economic understanding. The Anglo-Saxon view of economics is dead: consequently, even the so-called ‘classical’ national economy is no longer classical, but it has survived. So what it comes down to is that a new understanding arises to do with ideology and terminology, which represents a sound basis for agreement and co-operation. Relating to this, one must point out the following in detail:

  1. Economic direction is not a momentary emergency solution, instead it forms the core of new theory and practice. First of all, it takes the place of individual egotism and the automatic autonomy of the Anglo-Saxon precept.

  1. Economic direction is not identical to the tendencies of a centrally planned economy. It does not seek to cancel the individual or to administer through the state operators.

  1. Economic direction really means the following: the new instruction of the creative and constructive power of the individual in relation to the whole system; the creation of a consistent economic view and an attitude towards the economy; the selection of important tasks through political leadership and the state’s final decision on all questions about economic power. Beyond this, the economy is free and responsible to itself.

The degree of solidarity of the individual economies and their neighbourly attitude is characterised by three guidelines:

Firstly, it is limited in regard to its own economic development by the recognition that the utilisation of individual resources represents not only a requirement of the new economic precept, but is the very foundation for economic activity. The European economic community has no interest in leaving any abilities or possibilities unutilised.

Secondly, it contains the obligation that, because of Europe’s freedom, consideration is given firstly to continental Europe regarding any matter related to economic activity. Not only should the shared fate of the European people be emphasized, but the fact should also be stressed that the supplementation of the European economies beyond their borders is possible and sought after.

Thirdly, it must be maintained that, above all else, the spirit of the individual economies may not be allowed to go against the spirit of neighbourly co-operation.

The question of developing one’s own powers refers to the problem of mono-cultures, of industrialisation of the agrarian south-east and the awakening of new needs.

An answer can easily be given to the first question. Mono-cultures are the result of the same economic precept that made the world market price the determining factor in the economy. According to that precept, people and land are the vestiges of some by-gone age. Europe is well on the way to destroying these mono-cultures with initiatives ranging from land improvements and growing new crops to discovering new local resources. All these have the same aim, which is to develop the economy and broaden its basis. Germany and the whole of Europe can only greet these efforts with gratitude.

The industrialisation of the south-east poses a particular problem regarding these questions. As I am unable to handle this problem – like all other problems – here in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner, because the industrialisation of economies is theoretically a difficult problem, I can only say as follows:

  1. Just as it is in the nature of things that each country will strive to utilise its available resources for its own production, so will there will be a knock-on effect for other economic partners.

  1. If, as is the case in the South-east European countries, there is heavy over-population in the countryside, then there are only three possibilities to solve it: itinerant workers, a permanent emigration and an ‘intensivisation’ of the local economy, a term correctly created by Dr. Ilgner for the problem of industrialisation. Itinerant workers can only form a part solution. Besides, it only applies to agricultural and construction workers and gone on for ages. Permanent emigration from Europe is just as false as impossible. There just remains the intensivisation of the economies of south-east Europe as the way to self-help.

3. The economies should make it possible for an independent life according to the modern economic view. The intensivisation of their economies therefore is right for the time.

4. The old features of industrialisation, which evolved from the price collapses in countries with agriculture and raw materials, have to now belong to the past. Europe is a communal living area. Only through a joint development of economies – and not through independence from one another – can protection against crises be achieved.

5. The tasks that have to be solved in Europe are so big that the powers needed to do so have to be released by an intensivisation of the each economy. This can be easily done by employing the workers that have been liberated in new branches of the economy.

Without affecting the difficult questions of purchasing power, it can be regarded as proven that the joint work to build up Germany’s and the south-eastern states’ in the area of industrialisation lies in the direction of the intensivation of interest of the whole continent.

One important and until now completely overlooked task in this regard exists and that is the awakening of new needs in the south-eastern countries. It is because, in those countries, wealth has grown and will gradually continue to grow, as a result of the reliable purchase of agricultural products and available raw materials at adequate price levels. According to the principle in economics that giving equals taking, peoples’ living habits there will have to change, otherwise one day the process will come to a halt. Germany’s ability to absorb the products from the south-east is practically infinite, whereas creating a demand for German goods there is not only a matter for economic intensivation but also one of modifying the people so they consume more. This task is of such importance that it has to be considered from the very outset, so that the south-eastern European economies are elevated after the war.

Equally important as the industrialisation of south-east Europe is the question of the standard of living in the north. Their economic development and high standard of living, which underpin their lives though all economic conditions, should not be mistaken. This standard of living has grown considerably during the 19th century and around the time of the world war due to free trade, so that various circles view world economic events with particular concern. From a German viewpoint, only the following points can be made:

Firstly, a higher standard of living is also the aim of the German government. The German people not only understand this well, but also through its fight wants to ensure European civilisation and culture. This fight will benefit the whole of Europe, and with it the north.

Secondly, despite being connected successfully to England and its economic system (one should not ignore the countless economic troughs that feature there), the economies of the north whose fate and greatness are very closely linked to Germany.

Thirdly, the northern states’ difficulties are going through a temporary phase of adjustment. In the long-term, this will bring about a lasting advancement, rather than destruction, for their economies’ foundations.

Maintaining a high standard of living is not an insoluble problem. To finish, I now come to the problem of purchasing raw materials from overseas markets. A leading south-east European economist once wrote about this principal question: “Unlike the war, we were in the following situation: in order to import raw materials from overseas countries, we bought goods from west European countries with foreign exchange. In the area of continental Europe there is no gold. Everything had to pass through the system of clearing – goods sold against goods. We have no product that can be sold to North or South America. That means that the leading nations are obliged to acquire and distribute to us the raw materials that we need. The leading nations of Europe can supply, with its capacity, enough products to overseas countries with which to acquire raw materials. The one question is whether exchange will ever happen… Even before the new order is introduced, and without even joining in with the Axis powers, we stand in solidarity outside Europe with its traffic of goods…”

 

 

#acenewsservices, #angela-merkel, #economic, #economic-revolutions, #economy-of-europe, #economy-of-germany, #england, #european-union, #eurozone, #german, #germany, #libya, #middle-east, #new-world-order, #politics

Is the US Dollar losing its grip as the top-dog of World Currencies!

Over the past few years many economies have gone through massive change, none more than the United States of America. Having survived the 2008 crisis  and been able to re-float the economy, ever cautiously! The question of how, has never reared its ugly head until now! The link to the video l have added to the bottom of this post, lets you the people decide, about what really when on behind closed doors, to save the almighty dollar!

The fact that Germany deposited a vast amount of their Gold could lead some to believe this was to support an ailing economy, but others would argue it was just the best place to store their most precious possession! The action of the Federal Reserve, to refuse the auditors of Germany’s  Bundesbank access to check their deposit, could lead some to believe that it has been secured against some massive debt, to support the US Dollar maybe! Or it could just be a misunderstanding and it will all be made clear very soon!

Either way one fact is that of the 9 strong rooms in the Federal Reserve, the auditors were not allowed to view more than one, and not allowed in the room to touch or check their most valued asset!

After many years of studying currency providers and watching from the sidelines as people gambled on the stock-markets risking millions of £’s and $’s everyday, one thing is sure ,without people having faith in the currency, people start divesting themselves of their share portfolios, as in the news over the past 12 months many billionaires have done!

So when l see or hear about theses types of actions ,involving a currency l always remember the simple phrase ” There is  no Smoke without Fire” so once again l will watch and see how this latest story unfolds, and see if this time, the US Dollar and its mighty power over the world, finally loses its grip, and the top-dog on the world stage, is replaced by a mongrel that has been snapping at its heels for a long time, namely China!

More soon: Editor – link to video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyemAwLD2N0&feature=youtu.be

#acedebtnews, #acefinancenews, #acenewsservices, #china, #currency, #deutsche-bundesbank, #economic, #federal-reserve-system, #federalreserve, #germany, #politics, #united-states

Gold Standard Changes Since Cross Of Gold Speech

English: First Bank of the United States

English: First Bank of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Update to Cross of Gold Speech

The 1830`s were a tumultuous decade for America. The attempt by the Second Bank of the United States for an early re-charter was passed by Congress in July 1832, but the bill was vetoed shortly thereafter by President Andrew Jackson. The hopes of the bank’s supporters to turn the veto in a winning campaign issue in that fall’s presidential campaign failed dismally. In 1833, Jackson retaliated against the bank by removing federal government deposits and placing them in “pet” state banks. As federal revenue from land sales soared, Jackson saw the opportunity to fulfil his dream of paying off the national debt – which he did in early 1835. But as the economy overheated and so did state dreams of infrastructure projects. Congress passed a law in 1836 that required the federal surplus to be distributed to the states in four payments. Shortly afterwards, the Jackson Administration declared in its “Specie Circular” that payments for federal land purchases be made in specie. When combined with loose state banking practices and a credit contraction, a major economic crisis was brewing when Martin Van Buren took office as president in March 1837. Two months later, New York City banks suspended specie payments. A major economic recession was soon under-way. Van Buren – under pressure from his mentor Jackson – decided not to suspend the Specie Circular. Instead, he proposed a set of economic proposals that September – the most of important of which – an independent Sub-Treasury – Congress refused to pass. As a result, the recession double dipped in 1839 and the national economy did not recover until 1843.

The Second Bank of the United States

English: Second Bank of the United States, Phi...

English: Second Bank of the United States, Philadelphia, built 1819-24, William Strickland, architect. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The first Bank of the United States died when its twenty-year charter expired in 1811. Re-charter of BUS was strongly backed by Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, weakly backed by President James Madison, opposed by Vice President George Clinton, opposed by the House of Representatives, and strongly opposed by former President Thomas Jefferson. House Speaker Henry Clay’s later support of a national bank in the 1820s and 1830s linked him to the American originator of the bank idea, Alexander Hamilton, but Clay had begun his political life as an opponent of the national bank. Only later, Clay and other Jeffersonians came to recognize the important functions played by the BUS. Historian Sean Wilentz wrote: “Republican reconciliation with Hamilton’s bank idea had taken place by fits and starts, and was never monolithic. In 1811,…the Madison administration, goaded by Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin, supported it….In Congress, a coalition of Republican southerners and westerners, seeing the bank as an instrument for economic development in their respective regions led the re-charter effort.” 1 However, the effort fell short in the House. Historian Gordon S. Wood noted that “the more important enemies of the BUS were the state banks. By regularly redeeming the outstanding notes of  the state banks, the BUS had checked their ability to issue notes too far in excess of what they could cover with specie, that is, their reserves, and this had become a deep source of anger….When the twenty-year charter of Hamilton’s BUS was about to expire in 1811, it was not surprising that these state banks were determined that it would not be renewed.” 2” Henry Clay, Wilentz wrote, thought “the national bank unfairly constrained the operations of state banks.”

The death of the first Bank of the United States was almost prevented. “On January 24th, 1811, the House, by a single vote, rejected a preliminary motion on the bank charter, and the fight moved to the Senate,” noted Historian John Steele Gordon. “There, on February 20th, the Senate tied 17-17 on another preliminary matter, and Vice President George Clinton, in perhaps the only significant independent act by a vice president in American history, voted against the bank. The Bank of the United States was dead.” It was an economically and politically short-sighted act. Gordon noted that “many of the men who voted to kill the bank were the very same men who advocated war – the most expensive of all public policies – with one of the strongest military powers on earth. Given the bank was the government’s principal mechanism for collecting internal revenue and its only one for raising loans, the defeat of the charter was perhaps the most feckless act in the history of the United States Congress, although, to be sure, that is a title for which there has been no little competition over the years.”

The War of 1812 would soon prove the clear need for a government bank to help fund growing government expenses not covered by the nation’s limited tariff revenue. Such revenue was further limited by a transatlantic war. The conflict of national economic policy, begun in the 1790s between followers of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, continued. Leading up to the 1812 war, noted financial historian Susan Hoffman, one “group of agrarian, `unreformed’ or `unreconstructed’ Jeffersonian’s, opposed re-charter of the Bank of the United States because they continued to oppose all banking on philosophical grounds. They resurrected the old arguments against the bank’s constitutionality. Joining them in opposition to re-charter was the third contingent of congressional Republicans, the free enterprise’s. Here was the voice of the `interests’ of the day. Led by Henry Clay, they opposed the Bank of the United States because its regulatory hand got in the way of state banks and because its dominance of U.S. government deposits kept those deposits out-of-state bank vaults.”

Jackson slays the many-headed monster of the S...

Jackson slays the many-headed monster of the Second Bank of the United States (1836) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The War of 1812 upended the long political split in the country about the bank. Now in power for 16 years, many Jeffersonian’s began to see the necessity of the bank that Federalists had long championed. Preparations were made for a successor institution. With support of Speaker Clay, President Madison, future President James Monroe, and future Vice President John Calhoun, the Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816 for 20 years. By 1816, noted financial historian Susan Hoffman, “Reformed Jeffersonians…had concluded that banking was with us and must be regulated to make sure its consistency with the Jeffersonian concept of the public interest, which emphasized protection of the freedom and equality of people. The key factional shift that allowed the second national bank’s charter to pass was on the part of the state banking supporters. Whether they had opposed the central bank because they did not like any regulator or because they thought state regulation would be sufficient, this group concluded, in light of the economic chaos in the absence of the first national bank, that federal regulation was consistent with state banking.”6” Historian Sean Wilentz observed that the new bank was designed to curb inflation and speculative frenzies: “Acting as a financial balance-wheel, the national bank would, in principle, keep currency values and capital markets stable, and prevent national economic expansion from turning into an orgy of over speculation and runaway inflation.

The Second Bank of the United States got off to a rocky start. Susan Hoffmann wrote that it “opened for business in January 1817 under William Jones (1816-19) in the midst of the economic boom that followed the end of the War of 1812.” 8 Indeed, the revived national bank was not fortunate in its choice of directors who first inflated the currency and then contracted it. Historian Harlow Giles Unger wrote: “Inflated by speculation in western lands, an economic `bubble’ suddenly popped, with hundreds of banks shutting down, and thousands of depositors and investors wiped. The land rush had seen the number of banks grow to more than 1,000, with each issuing its own colourful bank notes – normally in two and five-dollar denominations, backed by no one knew what.” 9 This period has been dubbed the “Era of Good Feelings,” but it was not the era of good economic leadership or economic prosperity. Economic historian Charles Sellers wrote that the “brutal deflation saved the national Bank by sacrificing not only its debtors but the state banks and their hordes of debtors as well, which is to say, most of the market economy. Suddenly in the spring of 1819, as the Bank’s pressure was intensified by a similar financial crisis in Britain, world commodity prices collapsed.” Sellers wrote that “the collapse of agricultural prices made it impossible for state banks to collect from borrowers or meet obligations to the national Bank. When most state banks suspended the pretence of specie redemption, a flood of business failures and personal liquidation plunged Americans into their first experience of general and devastating economic prostration.”

http://lehrmaninstitute.org/history/Andrew-Jackson-1837.asp

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impeded over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the cost of the many, and in favour of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.

English: issued by the in the amount of $1,000.

English: issued by the in the amount of $1,000. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

http://www.thegoldstandardnhow.org/jackson

The national government lacked even the most rudimentary financial tools in the secession winter of 1860-61.   It lacked both a stable currency and supply of credit along with revenue and banking systems.  By the time the sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln, took the oath of office on March 4, 1861, the country was not only on the verge of Civil War but also a financial disaster.  The nation’s coffers were empty, left in disarray from three decades of Jacksonian fiscal policies, and the government faced a continuing liquidity crisis in light of the demands generated by Civil War expenditures.

Early in his administration, Lincoln recognized that the war’s outcome would be largely determined by resources.  Thus, he understood the imperative of raising funds to carry out the war effort.  It was against this backdrop that Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase to the Treasury, authorizing Chase alone to act on all matters of the country’s finances.  Chase, like most everyone else when, underestimated the severity of the War—both its duration and its cost.  Just as dangerous, perhaps, Chase overestimated the usefulness of Jackson era financial policies to deal with the crisis.

Upon taking office, Chase “found on hand less than $2,000,000, all of which was appropriated ten times over.  He calculated that he needed $320,000,000, as he reported to the Congress that met in July 1861,” wrote financial historian Bray Hammond.  Chase needed credit, revenue, and an increase in the supply of money.

After the fall of Fort Sumter, Lincoln unilaterally began to finance the war effort.  Over the month`s that followed, Chase—with Lincoln’s occasional assistance—would court Congress, encouraging bond sales, higher tariffs, a single national currency, and bank reforms.

Chase biographer Albert Bushnell Hart wrote: “The most important financial measures during the first year were arrangements for new loans, and the real borrowing of money—both matter`s in which the brief legislation of Congress was very significant, for there was laid the foundation for large issues of bonds, of interest-bearing notes, and of circulating notes.”

Chase had asked Congress, meeting in special session during in July 1861, to authorize $240 million in loan`s. Chase was convinced that the government should not sell its securities below par, but there was no market for government securities at par.  American financier Jay Cooke became a close advisor to Chase in 1861, suggesting that the Treasury sell bonds directly to the American public, appealing to their patriotism and emotion.    Chase, therefore, asked Congress for low-denomination Treasury notes which people could pay for in instalments.  As described by historian Phillip S. Paludan, the Treasury secretary sought “to encourage their enthusiasm  Chase wanted to have these notes earn interest at a penny a day on a $50 note—a higher rate than usually paid by the government.  Average Northern citizens would thus link their fortunes to the success of Union arms.”

http://www.thegoldstandardnow.orgh/the-civil-war-and-greenbacks

Future Intentions: According to 

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who has covered world politics and economics for 30 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. Who joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. Who is now International Business Editor in London.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100022332/a-new-gold-standard-is-being-born/

The world is moving step by step towards a de facto Gold Standard, without any meetings of G20 leaders to announce the idea or bless the project.

Some readers will already have seen the GFMS Gold Survey for 2012 which reported that central banks around the world bought more bullion last year in terms of tonnage than at any time in almost half a century.

They added a net 536 tonnes in 2012 as they diversified fresh reserves away from the four fiat suspects: dollar, euro, sterling, and yen.

The Washington Accord, where Britain, Spain, Holland, Switzerland, and others sold a chunk of their gold each year, already seems another era – the Gordon Brown era, you might call it.

That was the illusionary period when investors thought the Euro would take its place as the twin pillar of a new G2 condominium alongside the dollar. That hope has faded. Central bank holdings of Euro bonds have fallen back to 26pc, where they were almost a decade ago. Please download the PDF below of the draft.

World Gold Council Draft Exposure_draft_Conflict_Free_Gold_Standard_prexposure_draft_conflict_free_gold_standard_pr.pdf

 

 

 

#alexander-hamilton, #andrew-jackson, #economy, #george-clinton, #government, #henry-clay, #jackson, #politics, #second-bank-of-the-united-states, #specie-circular, #united-states

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the spending cuts announced in the Autumn Statement are “close to inconceivable”

Tax

Tax (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012)

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the spending cuts announced in the Autumn Statement are “close to inconceivable” and added that it believes further welfare cuts and tax rises are likely if the Government’s figures are to add up. Its director Paul Johnson said that pensioners’ benefits could be targeted for further cuts, commenting: “Working age individuals receiving benefits and tax credits have been hit. The richest few per cent have been hit very hard. Pensioners, and those in work on more modest incomes have borne less of the burden.” The IFS said that Britain is on course for £7bn of tax rises and another £20bn in welfare cuts and spending reductions after the next election, adding that it expects 5m workers to be paying higher-rate tax by 2015 – half a million more than the Treasury’s estimate.

 

#autumn-statement, #britain, #business, #economy, #george-osborne, #government, #ifs, #institute-for-fiscal-studies, #legal-working-age, #paul-johnson, #politics, #tax

Rising Cost Of Care Will Erode Pensioners Wealth

old age home

old age home (Photo credit: jaded one)

A joint report from the Department of Health, Department for Work and Pensions and Department for Communities and Local Government will warn this week that a rising number of elderly people face losing “almost all of their wealth” to pay for social care. The report warns that the country may not be able to afford to fund a £35,000 cap on care costs amid a rapidly expanding population. The submission notes that by 2030, the number of pensioners is forecast to rise by 51%, while the number of disabled older people is expected to increase by 61% to 4m. The Government predicts that these rises will lead to unprecedented pressure on the NHS, councils and the state pension system. As a result, the report estimates that number of older people forced to rely on families and friends for help with care costs will double by 2030.

#daily-telegraph, #department-for-communities-and-local-government, #department-for-work-and-pensions, #department-of-health, #economy, #environment, #government, #house-of-lords, #old-age, #pension, #politics, #social-work

Are Romney’s Pledges As Good As They Seem-When He Says He Will Provide Jobs

 

Last week Mitt Romney committed himself to picking a Federal Reserve Board chairman that will try to keep workers’ wage down, likely costing them tens of thousands of dollars over the next decade. You remember reading the front page news stories on this pronouncement?
Of course you didn’t read them, because the media largely ignored President Romney’s statement about his choice of Fed chairs. And all of them ignored its implications for people’s wages and living standards. The media would rather focus on the ongoing debate over President Obama’s birth certificate or, when we are lucky, tax policy decisions that might in the extreme case make $1,000-$2,000 a year in difference to the typical family. The much more important policy decisions that allow people like Mitt Romney to be incredibly wealthy and the rest of the country to be struggling are totally off the media’s radar screen.
Romney’s statement about the Fed fits in the latter category because he said that he would pick a chair who supports a “strong dollar.” The implication is that he wants the Fed to run policies that keep the dollar over-valued relative to other currencies, making U.S. goods uncompetitive in international markets. Courtesy of Dean Baker – Huffington Post 

My Personal View: 

Will this type of action not cut wages and at the same time create a no-jobs for the man in the street, mentality? As anyone knows by keeping wages low you cut the ability of the economy to grow by the power of your workers! The sheer fact that there is less money in the economy will prevent growth and with the Fed ready to issue another round of fiscal stimulation, this will help overheat an already massive debt burden! Then the only way is that the balance of debt over growth will tip them into a deeper recession than the 1930’s!

The only way any country, nation or people can make any country prosperous is by rewarding people for a job well done, that are at the sharp-end. As these people are the coal on which any economy will grow! Then instead of warming themselves on Capitol Hill on the embers of a dying economy they can look out and see a nation of people proud to be Americans,once again.

 

#barack-obama-citizenship-conspiracy-theories, #current-events, #dean-baker, #federal-reserve-system, #mass-media, #mitt-romney, #obama, #politics, #republican, #romney, #united-states

Only Good Citizens Need Apply!

The Mail on Sunday claims that Ed Miliband has been embarrassed by MPs in his own party, after the Labour leader called for ‘good citizens’ to be fast-tracked up council-housing lists. The paper notes that the local Labour council in Camden has said that they don’t have enough houses, while Labour runMerton Council has said such a move would breach Harriet Harman’s equalities legislation.

I read this story with dismay as the word ” Good ” has many onerous ways to be understood!  The free dictionary has many ways to tell us how it should be used, please read it at this link http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Good 

The good l mean is who decides one man or woman is good and by what guidelines do we apply this meaning? If we refer to one person being good at sport ,do we believe those people get a council house first! Or maybe someone who teaches our children and who earns enough, to pay for a home and does not need this type of help! Or maybe simply the tramp in the street, who for no fault of his own is on their uppers! Once a shopkeeper and a supermarket is allowed to open up and his business goes crash!

So l look at good as what one person does for another and not by what that person expects in return! The meaning of giving of oneself for no reward is a seldom gift and so easily abused, by us and our society!

#current-events, #ed-miliband, #free-dictionary, #good-citizens, #government, #harriet-harman, #jon-cruddas, #labour, #labour-council, #labour-leader, #mail-on-sunday, #member-of-parliament, #miliband, #politics